Posted by Riley DeWiley on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:22 | #

Great.

But how many votes does that make?

Riley

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:06 | #

What percent of the population does it take to disable the state?

What percent of the population supports Ron Paul for reasons other than his preference for having young heroic men, while incarcerated for civil disobedience, raped by ethnic prison gangs, rather than seeing those young men take direct action to disable Leviathan?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:41 | #

There are those on the other side who’ve called Ron Paul insane. 

Yes, he’s insane all right.  A complete raving lunatic.

Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:37 | #

Dear Fred,

The site you linked to is blocked by the state censorship in the middle eastern country where I reside.

You get this message: 
 
 
 


We apologize the site you are attempting to visit has been blocked due to its content being inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the ......

If you think this site should not be blocked, please visit the Feedback Form available on our website.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:56 | #

And Friedrich such an anti-semite, too.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:58 | #

Robert Reis, the link went to a video Friedrich Braun had posted that shows Stephen Colbert using sarcastic irony to refute the morons who call Ron Paul “insane.” 

I know what message you’re getting, by the way:  it’s the one you get by clicking here.  (Or at least I get it on my machine, here in the States — what shows on my screen is a very polite message from the United Arab Emirates explaining why Scimitar’s recently dismantled forum site, “The Lyceum Forum,” has been blocked by that country.)  (Scimitar signs now as “Prozium,” his newest blog site linked at his signature.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:06 | #

Prozium’s site.

Posted by kane on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:29 | #

Let’s hope Fade/scimitar/prozium won’t be harvesting passwords for the purpose of hacking with this forum.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:04 | #

There’s a blistering white-hot log entry by Prozium in reply to John Zmirak (an entry which for some reason I hadn’t read until this morning — everyone should read it).  The very Catholic Zmirak, whom I always highly respected until his recent savaging of Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, and Brenda Walker for the reason that he hasnt got the brains, the stomach, or the soul for race (and so lashes out, as weaker character so often does when confrontation with stronger forces it to look at its own defiencies which it can’t stand and doesn’t know how to react to) is essentially saying along with the Vatican Curia that there is no room in Catholicism for race.  The answer to him and to those like him including the sodomites running the Vatican (who clearly share the distaste virtually all homos have for acknowledgement of race), is this:  his side, the side of government-enforced race-replacement of all Euros everywhere on the planet by Negroes, not only isn’t Catholicism but is a Christian heresy that’s going to be overthrown by those adhering to genuine Christianity including the True Catholic religion.  If anything inherent in Christianity thwarts that, Christianity will for all intents and purposes disappear, dwindling to something of the stature and significance of Santeria and deservedly so as some other religion, some true religion for a change, replaces it.  Zmirak may not have the brains to realize what his position against race ultimately entails.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:28 | #

Prozium is a first-rate mind, of course.  The person signing as “Iceman” at his new blog is, to put it mildly, extremely confused.  “Iceman’s” log entries can be safely skipped if the two I just read are any indication.  (I can’t tell who “Iceman” is — obviously not “Zusammen,” who’s a lot less in a mental fog.  Whoever he is, Prozium needs to be more circumspect as regards whom he invites to be co-blogger.)

Posted by danielj on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:52 | #

Seconded Fadeberg.

Drop the Iceman.

Top Gun? Really?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:26 | #

I’m going to vote for Ron Paul on Tuesday. I have been wrestling with this decision for many months now. Paul’s views are completely opposed to my own on any number of issues, but I like the way he is shaking up the system. This is a trend I would like to see continue. He also has a few good points.

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who believes America should be a normal country. He doesn’t believe in CENTCOM, AFRICOM, EUCOM, NORTHCOM, USPACOM, or USSOUTHCOM. Paul would fundamentally change America’s role in the world. This nightmare for racialists began in 1945 when America assumed the so-called “leadership role” of the Western democracies. This evil aspiration to control the world opened up our domestic institutions to foreign criticism and pressure in a new way. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a reaction to the embarrassment caused to the U.S. federal government by the Little Rock incident. This is but one example of the complex connections between globalism and the empowerment of domestic racial minorities.

A vote for Ron Paul is a blow to Zionism, the Federal Reserve, the insane Pentagon militarists, the warmongering neocon clique, the tyrannical globalist institutions like the IMF and NATO, the cheap labor business lobby, the “civil rights” con-artists, the mainstream media, FreeRepublic.com, religious fundamentalists, and the establishment that controls both worthless political parties. It seems that every detestable faction in America has some reason to hate Ron Paul. So he has to be doing something right.

Posted by The Real Kane on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:00 | #

I am the real kane.  The other one is an imposter.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:43 | #

It’s nice to know you’re under surveillance by both the real deal and the imposter.  For a while I was worried only the imposter was taking an interest.  Then the real deal showed up.  All my anxieties:  gone!  I feel GREAT!

Posted by GT on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:52 | #

JB writes: ... {Ron Paul’s} use of the word “revolution”, particularly in conjunction with the word “manifesto”, does have real meaning and consequences.

What meaning?  What consequences?

Posted by matt on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:04 | #

Iceman is kane. He’s one of the few people who’ll give Fade the time of day anymore. They’re both as nuts as each other these days but at least Fade is smart and often worth reading. Just don’t trust him.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:51 | #

GT:  During the prior campaign, Ron Paul has been careful to say that the word “revolution” was not his but rather the word his supporters used to describe the “Ron Paul movement”—further saying that he supports nonviolent means for change such as civil disobedience.  Here he clearly embraces the word as his own and puts it in context, not with “civil disobedience” but rather “manifesto”, which is a word associated with violent revolution.  This further distances the sense of “revolution” away from civil disobedience.

The consequences?

In the likely event that the government continues its current trend toward an economically failed militaristic police state, and more of the population continues its exodus from the Old Media to the New Media, the consequences for the Ron Paul movement are clear: 

Preemptive defense.

Now, it is plausible that what Ron Paul is doing with this title is attempting to preempt violence from his frustrated supporters, by giving the book such a title, and then arguing the cause of nonviolent civil disobedience within the book’s pages.

Posted by GT on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:46 | #

JB writes: This further distances the sense of “revolution” away from civil disobedience.

... and toward the preemptive defense (or first strike) mode, if I’m reading you correctly.  I haven’t read the book, but will say that’s unlikely.

More likely this is what he’s doing:

… it is plausible that what Ron Paul is doing with this title is attempting to preempt violence from his frustrated supporters, by giving the book such a title, and then arguing the cause of nonviolent civil disobedience within the book’s pages.

Now, would “nonviolent civil disobedience” include the manufacture of munitions?  If so, then arguing the cause of nonviolent civil disobedience is not <u>necessarily</u> inconsistent with advocating a preemptive defense if the former led to the development of a credible first strike capability.

Posted by Jean West on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:45 | #

Revolution, not just change, is creeping into the RP forums:

http://www.changeisnotenough.com/

Interesting Cavuto/Schiff discussion—second half includes 2 more economists—good ending:

http://www.europac.net/Schiff-FBN-2-04-08_lg.asp

JW

Posted by GT on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:15 | #

Jean West writes: Revolution, not just change, is creeping into the RP forums.

Something more effective than buying tee-shirts and promoting low-level assassinations, a coup, or a series of nationwide strikes by the masses of utterly dependent urban/suburban asses is needed, Jean.  Conservatism won’t help us, neither will voting for McCain or Hilbama ‘cause “worse is better” (see southern Africa).

All the above has been on the table for 50 years.  We have only 25 years, at best, to get our act together and implement a new plan for White independence on this continent or we will, without a doubt, fade away into the night.

Posted by Fr. John on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:59 | #

“The answer to him and to those like him including the sodomites running the Vatican (who clearly share the distaste virtually all homos have for acknowledgement of race), is this:  his side, the side of government-enforced race-replacement of all Euros everywhere on the planet by Negroes, not only isn’t Catholicism but is a Christian heresy that’s going to be overthrown by those adhering to genuine Christianity including the True Catholic religion.”

Fred, how right you are.

The Orthodox have considered ‘Catholi-schism’ to be a heretical communion since 1054 A.D.

The ENTIRE CORPUS of Europe for CENTURIES considered her racial identity to be synonymous with her Christianity. I [personally] am willing to concede that there was some remnant of grace in Catholicism up until Vatican II, in that great minds still iterated biblical and theological (and racial!) truths such as Hilaire Belloc, who penned. “Europe is the Faith, the Faith, Europe.”

Zmirak IS a fool or a heretic, or both….one can never be sure. But what I am sure of, his views are those of one taught via the ‘aggiornimento’ of the Spurious Second Vatican Council. And thus, are no authentic form of Christianity.

God is the model for White Racial Consciousness. YHWH God (and His Son [!] Jesus) is clearly, from the pages of Holy Writ, very much a ‘racially conscious’ God!

[http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-season-of-incarnation-1/] up to entry#13

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:15 | #

God does not mandate racial/ethnocultural consciousness and preservation through all reasonable, humane, Christian means, including the setting of reasonable, humane, Christian immigration policy — God does not mandate any of that but he permits it.  Under Christianity it is permitted, exactly as possessing, keeping, and bequeathing property and wealth are permitted, otherwise every piece of Church property would have to be sold, the proceeds donated to the poor.  This is part of the meaning of Jesus’s defense of the woman who anointed him with expensive ointment as the disciples, looking on, grumbled that the ointment would have been better sold, the proceeds donated to the poor:  this parable’s message is that we are permitted under Christianity to have, keep, and bequeath certain worldly things, among them wealth and property.  Our communal race/ethnoculture is another of the worldly things we’re permitted to have, preserve, and pass on. 

In saying God does not mandate racial/ethnocultural consciousness and preservation I might have been mistaken, since a form of Christian theological opposition to racial self-destruction can be imagined along the lines of Christian theological opposition to suicide.  There are enough deep relationships between the suicide of the individual on the one hand and the collective natiocide of the race/ethnoculture on the other that a case likely could be made for inherent Christian opposition to both, and if that’s true, then Christianity DOES mandate racial self-preservation, and no more leaves it up to us as a choice than it leaves suicide up to us as a choice. 

Furthermore, a community’s race and ethnoculture being more than a material thing like money in a bank account, jewelry or other personal property, or ownership of a piece of real estate (all of which Christianity permits as witness the parable of Jesus and the ointment, and the fact that the Church isn’t required to liquidate all its holdings and give the proceeds to the poor), they may have even greater claim on a Christian right of preservation through all reasonable, humane, Christian means (and setting reasonable immigration policy as a way to assure such preservation is in no way inhumane or unchristian).

Why hasn’t the Vatican set its top Catholic theologians and scholars to work clarifying this issue in this time of unprecedented demographic crisis for the European race and ethnoculture?  Because homosexuals discount the importance of race.  That’s why.

When homosexuality comes before theology the religion’s establishment is no longer legitimate and it’s time for some housecleaning at the very least, if not an outright revolution.  When uneducated laymen such as myself are reduced to trying desperately to come up with theological reasoning they are totally uneducated and unequiped for, reasoning which Church scholars ought to be doing, something’s very, very, very wrong with the leadership of that religion:  something’s very, very, very wrong at the top.

When elementary and profound truth which is evident to laymen passes the leadership by completely, something is gravely wrong at the top.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:25 | #

If not letting the Third World in to take your country is unchristian, so is not letting the Third World in to take your home, car, bank account, and all your other possessions and so is not letting them sleep with your wife and daughter.  Does Christianity mandate we do all those other things, on grounds that not doing them would be mean to the world’s poor?  Of course not.  Then it doesn’t mandate the first either, on those grounds.  If that’s not so, why hasn’t every cathedral and piece of real estate, every work of art, every Michelangelo and Bernini the Vatican possesses, been sold at auction, the proceeds donated to help the poor?  Why???  And why isn’t the Vatican clarifying these things in this time of crisis???

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:37 | #

Racial/ethnocultural consciousness is legitimate under Christianity and so is its preservation by all reasonable, humane means including the setting of reasonable immigration policy which harms no one.  Christians DEMAND clarification of this profound Christian truth from the Vatican and from the Archbishop of Canterbury!  They DEMAND it!  Christians are FED UP!  Let “conservative” intellectual non-entity and moral zero John Zmirak put that in his “anti-racist” pipe and smoke it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:41 | #

That was clumsily worded above.  It should have read, of course,

Racial/ethnocultural consciousness is legitimate under Christianity and so is racial/ethnocultural self-preservation by all reasonable, humane means including the setting of reasonable immigration policy which harms no one.

I trust my meaning in either version will be clear to any Vatican homos/race-replacers who may happen to read this.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:00 | #

If some gypsies walk into the Vatican and demand such-and-such Bernini scuplture to sell at auction and so escape from poverty will the priests give it to them?  They won’t???  But ... but ... but ... I thought Catholics say we even have to give away our countries, our racial/ethnocultural selves/communities to the Third-World poor in the form of the immigration/race-replacement invasion which is literally taking them away from us, those things we hold most dear.  We have to acquiesce in that, like good Christians.  And what’s a Bernini sculpture compared to an entire racial/ethnocultural community, identity, nation-state, ancient nation of Europe?  There’s no comparison, so the priests will give the Bernini sculpture to this group of gypsies, no?

If poor Third-Worlders come to a Catholic priest and say they want the savings of this or that parishioner, or his house, or his car, or all his clothes, or all the food in his kitchen, the priest will say no, he can’t ask the parishioner to give those up:  under Catholicism that parishioner is allowed to have those things even if there are also poor people in the world.  Why does that same Catholic priest say they can have that parishioner’s racial community and nation state?  Aren’t those also things the parishioner is allowed to have under Catholicism even if there are poor in the world? 

The priest will certainly exhort that parishioner and all the other parishioners to contribute something to those poor supplicants so they won’t go away empty-handed.  But that’s not what’s happening with the Third-World race-replacement immigration/population-transfer crisis.  We as nations were already doing that with foreign aid.  What’s happening now is the other, the thing where the poor come to the priest and ask for the parishioner’s bank account, house, car, clothing, and contents of his kitchen and the priest says OK you can have them, take them from him, it’s right that you do so under Catholicism.  But it’s not right under Catholicism, because our racial/ethnocultural communities are among the worldly things we’re allowed under Catholicism to keep, same as our bank accounts, homes, clothing, jewelry, and other possessions, and even more so since they’re more spiritual than money in the bank and more spiritually important to us than silver and gold.  So we’ve even more right to keep them under Catholicism than to keep our cars, our furniture, and our TV sets.

The Vatican needs right now to be clarifying this question.  The office of the Archbishop of Canterbury as well, but without the horse’s ass who’s in there now:  he needs to resign and be replaced by someone who can actually think.  Who can actually feel.  Hey I know the guy who’s in there now, that Blair appointee (and which string-pulling British Jews strongly recommended Blair name him, I’d like to know?) — I realize the guy who’s in there now is John Zmirak’s favorite but Zmirak’s as much a horse’s ass as he, so that can be disregarded.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:10 | #

This stuff would’ve been understood until 1945, the year the War to Make the World Safe for Race-Replacement was won.  Since 1945 this stuff is no longer understood because the evilest forces in world history, the ones planning race-replacement, won that war, and now thanks to them the world is so safe for race-replacement that you go to jail if you even think thoughts.  That’s how safe the Allied Victory in that war has made the world for race-replacement:  if you think thoughts, you go to jail.  To not go to jail today you have to be a zombie without anything in your head which the Jews can identitfy as thoughts.  Thanks to the evil forces that instigated and won that war.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:25 | #

Fred, the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be Nazir-Ali or Sentamu.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:33 | #

GW that’s because the Jews who run Labour don’t want a white.  They’ll give Brown a list with only these two names on it.  He, not wanting to bite the hand that feeds him any more than Blair did, will of course obediently choose from the list.  My prediction is Sentamu will be chosen, for the reason that Jews will prefer the least Euro of candidates in furtherance of race-replacement, and a Negro is further from the Euro race than a Subcon.

From what I’ve seen, by the way, both Nazir-Ali and Sentamu are excellent men.  But neither is appropriate for reasons of race, especially not given the present race-replacement crisis in the Eurosphere.  But the Jews who pull Brown’s strings will get their way of course — “He who pays the piper” and all that ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:43 | #

Jewish money and influence being what they are, Williams could’ve said that he looked forward to the day when there would be no unmixed Euros remaining in Britain and gotten away with it, but the imbecile was too dense to “get” that he couldn’t say Sharia Law would be OK and get away with it.  To understand what you can say and get away with you have to understand what the Jews want.  He clearly doesn’t.  He probably also thinks he was appointed by Blair, who in turn was acceding to Jewish request, for his talents rather than because he was known to be an extreme-radical left-winger and malleable imbecile.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:45 | #

A useful idiot, in other words.  Now his usefulness has run out.  (He’ll always be an idiot, though.  At least he has that consolation.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:51 | #

Blair, by the way, is a man of no convictions whatsoever, exactly in the Bill Clinton mold.  He’s a pure opportunist.  As for Brown, he seems simply a dull dunce of some sort.  But he’ll follow orders well enough, and that’s what’s wanted by the big contributors who pull the strings.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:41 | #

Here’s what the Jews think of Ron Paul — yes, yes, the same Jews who want the genocide of every Euro man, woman, and child on the planet so bad it’s almost a religious tenet with them, those Jews, the exact same ones — as reflected in the Derb’s new piece over at Taki’s (no he doesn’t say the e-mail writer is Jewish but switch your J-dar on — it’ll start pinging wildly):

The thing I am asked most often about the Paul campaign is:  Why has the candidate not denounced the various nutso fringe groups —  9/11 “Truthers,” anti-Semites, Stormfronters, and the like —  who have been loud in support for Paul and who (according to my questioners) have in some cases made contributions to his campaign under their own banners? Some people are very angry indeed about this.  I have received a hundred emails like the following:

“I have noticed recently your support for Ron Paul.  I assume, therefore, that he has unequivocally rejected the support of all the vile hate groups … who have contributed to his campaign, has returned all of their contributions, has publicly rejected their philosophy and stated explicitly that they represent values that America despises.

“If my assumption is not correct, what the hell’s the matter with you?  The issue is the refusal to condemn evil —  and I think you know that as well as anyone.  Paul’s refusal to return the money and his silence on their beliefs isn’t merely despicable … it is an indebtedness to evil that he accepts.  There has been nothing more horrifying in American politics since the German-American Bund.”

The “German-American Bund”? ... Are they still around?  Hey I think I’ll join, after reading that thing by that obnoxious Jew!

To anyone who still wants lots of Jews in his country after reading that, all I can say is ... Hey go for it, pal ... Be my guest.  Just do me a favor and show me where the door marked “Exit” is, OK?

(Hat tip)  (This was originally going to be a scathing attack on Ron Paul for refusing to run on the National Question, by far his greatest potential strength — refusing to run on race-replacement, in other words — but I got side-tracked onto the closely-related Jewish Question after reading that hyper-hyper-hyper obnoxious natiotoxic Jew’s e-mail to the Derb, a Jew so obnoxious he makes Abe Foxman seem like Dale Carnegie.  But I’ll come back with a scathing attack on Ron Paul next time.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:52 | #

(In the meantime don’t anyone send Ron Paul a dime as long as he refuses to run on the “National Question,” would be my very strong recommendation:  if he refuses to run on that, his campaign is going strictly nowhere and he’s just playing games with your money — not to mention with your hopes, your dreams, and your desperation.  He’s just out there playing games and having fun amusing himself.  You have better things to do with your money.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:56 | #

Starting toward the end of this month The Realist is going to experiment with adding an “action-alert” feature to his blog, through which readers will be able to send faxes directly to members of Congress.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:54 | #

McCain’s penetrating mastery of economics.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:26 | #

Will the Immigration Issue Rise in 2008?

As Steve Sailer has noted, there’s real reason to think McCain will be an ineffective candidate.  And, unlike the bland Dole, McCain positively enrages conservatives (and patriotic imigration reformers).  And there are going to be a lot of released Romney delegates wandering around (they are not bound by Romney’s endorsement of McCain) as well as McCain delegates getting cold feet.

It’s a recipe for trouble.  And opportunity.

For example, Rasmussen Reports currently shows that in Texas McCain leads Governor Huckabee very modestly, 45%-37%.  (Ron Paul has 7%.)  Throughout this primary season, immigration has been named as the most important issue by a significant fraction of GOP primary voters, but in Texas it’s actually first (26% vs. 25% for “Economy.”)  McCain gets only 22% of the immigration-focused voters.  (Paul gets 28%, unusually good for him.)

As I’ve said before, the immigration issue is now clearly the rock beneath the water in American politics. And, with this year’s unstable situation, it could well rise again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:42 | #

“The difference between McCain and Obama is that the latter is at least honest about his position on immigration (McCain runs political ads in Spanish).  A vote for McCain is an endorsement of a two-party system in which all opposition to amnesty is relabeled ‘fringe.’  It shifts the debate towards the pro-amnesty side.”