|
|
|
Stopping Senate Bill 744 by Leon Haller On Tuesday June 11, 2013, at 2:15pm EST, the United States Senate is going to begin the process of destroying America as we have known it. At this time, the Senate will be voting on Senate Bill 744, which is the first step in granting a “path to citizenship” to the estimated 30 MILLION illegal aliens (99%+ non-white) occupying our country. Given horrendous other provisions in the bill dramatically increasing legal immigration, in addition to the insanely generous “family reunification” provisions already present in American immigration policy, this is the first step in the last stage (begun in 1965) of what will be the certain white minoritization of the US (with this bill, by 2020-25), to be followed by the collapse of the USA into brutal white persecution (starting 2030-35) if not actual genocide (by 2040-45, and no later than 2050). Think Rhodesia/South Africa as our White American future. [Of course, the Fall of White America is going to be an event of world-historical import for all the European peoples, especially in light of the economic as well as domestic racial (and indigenous demographic decline) problems in Europe today. Given how European governments are idiotically slashing their defense budgets in desperate attempts to avoid the day of reckoning with their own failed socialist welfare states, who will defend Old Europe when the young, fecund and ideologically radicalizing Maghreb rises up and looks northward, and America has disappeared?] To move forward S.744 needs 60 “Yes” votes. WE CAN DEFEAT THIS AMNESTY TODAY! There are 45 Republican Senators. At least 4 are traitors on the scale of Judas Iscariot (McCain, Graham, Flake and, of course, Rubio). But if the others hang tough, or if we can augment their number with a few rural state Democrats, we can stop this treason cold! It depends on the plain people of America showing their patriotism - NOW!! Call as many Senators (esp Republicans) as possible, telling them to vote NO today on moving forward on the S.744 amnesty bill. I have called 31 so far (not to mention past email messages), along with my two worthless CA Democrats. Toll free number for Capitol switchboard (they will connect you to whichever Senate offices you ask for) is: 1-888-978-3094 Here are the Senators. I have eliminated both the worthless against us (eg, Schumer, McCain), and the exceptional with us (eg, Sessions, Cruz), and bolded the most important remaining ones to call (“important” because they are most amenable to influence; ie, either they haven’t firmly committed to Yes or No, or they are moderate Democrats / liberal Republicans who need to hear grass-roots opposition; or they are retiring and might do the right thing for the American working class; or they are Rubio and Graham, the former of whom is now waffling on his own bill, the latter of whom is up for re-election next year). List of current Senators (in order of seniority) 2. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah It’s time for white preservationists to stop whining and start doing. NOW. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:20 | # And thank you Fr. John, for revealing what and who is behind this post, in facilitating Thorn and Haller’s assignment derail all White organization besides Christianity - as its idiocy may be controlled by Jews. There will be no collective, popular and concerted effort against immigration unless White/European people are organized and united enough. Some thinking people may wince and pretend to believe in Orthodox Christianity or other Christianity for the sake of political expedience, but no honest European person is going to believe in it and “kneel before” the bizarre nonsense of stubborn old idiots like Fr. John. He is empowered by corrupt people. An authentic European religion will emerge to supplant frauds like him and to vanquish the fungus that is Christianity, as it has grown on the corpse of feral Jews. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:22 | # Is DanielS a complete idiot or what? Thorn, Today we do our duty. I’ve just been on the phone with three other GOP offices (Ayotte, Heller and Portman). The latter two are “still reviewing” (douchebags), but I gave a strong mouthful to the Ayotte staffer. I gave her such a blizzard of info she offered to try to put me directly in touch with the Senator, but then said I’d have to wait on hold for up to half an hour. I said no thanks (as I have others to call). Try to think of places within the relevant states you can say you’re from. I happen to know NH and NV and OH pretty well. Places like TN and WV etc will be tough. Keep fighting. This is Phase 1. We will have to go through this several times in the coming months (while Daniel the Douchebag does no real work, other than insulting the Lord). 4
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:45 | # .. No Haller, you are the complete idiot, and every honest person who cares about European peoples knows it. 5
Posted by wattylersrevolt on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:37 | # Heads UP:has anybody noticed something funny going on over at American Renaissance? American Renaissance has informed Disqus to start asking for email verification…for how many commenters..we don’t know. Some us believe the American Renaaisance Moderator is commenting in the threads under the name John Engleman and over-the-top-asianphile. In fact, we believe that it is is brain-dead obvious that this is going on. My only question is:does Jared Taylor know what’s going on. I would be very carefull about posting on American Renaissace. Jim Bowery..and thoughts about this? 6
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:41 | # Leon, thanks for the article although I think it could have done to more effect without insulting those whom you are admonishing as in: “It’s time for white preservationists to stop whining and start doing. NOW.” Its unclear why you left some of the Senators off the list that you did. For example, Senator Harkin’s office assures me that he is not committed. As he is from my home county in Iowa, I called his office anyway to inform his staff that I had witnessed, first hand, the ethnic nepotism of Indians in, once they attained high corporate status, hiring their own over better-qualified US citizens and that if it was happening in the founding company of Silicon Valley, you could be sure it was happening in other Fortune 500 companies. Also, it is unclear why you left Elizabeth Warren off the list, despite her lack of seniority, as her primary work at Harvard University on middle class bankruptcy clearly puts her in an authoritative position to speak, with in the Senate, to the long-term trend of transfers from the middle class to rentiers such as those that back the Republican traitors. Since entering the Senate she has been derailed from her primary area of expertise—the plummeting risk-adjusted household disposable income of US citizens since 1970—into dealing at the margins with how their resulting debt is handled. She needs to be reminded that her original authority is the important issue: Real, risk-adjusted earning power of middle class families—and that this is directly related to immigration policy. Daniel, I don’t understand your response. Why the reference to Fr. John when there was no response from him? Why bother bringing the conflict with the JudeoChristians into this thread? 7
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:21 | # Daniel, I don’t understand your response. Why the reference to Fr. John when there was no response from him? Why bother bringing the conflict with the JudeoChristians into this thread?
Having said that, it was all that I wanted to say on the matter - but it was/is relevant as such: their motivation.
8
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:14 | #
Maybe Danny and Jon can pool their money and invest in one of these devices: [ —— On a more serious note, John Boehner Committed to Ram Through Immigration Plan By August NumbersUSA has all the info and tools you need in order to contact the senators and congressmen. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/
9
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:13 | # We lost 84-15. Only 15 Senators showed that they are patriots. FIFTEEN! That’s it. That is the true number of American patriots in the US Senate. Now the real work begins. Every patriot is going to have to make a blizzard of phone calls to Senators and representatives across the country to let especially the GOP bastards know that WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM EVER AGAIN unless they vote down ANY immigration amnesty proposals. We don’t want “better border security”, “back taxes”, “English language requirements”, “criminal background checks” etc etc. WE WANT ALL THE ALIENS DEPORTED! No “path to citizenship” ever. That’s it, and it must be repeated endlessly. Create a master email message of your own, and then copy it to every US Senator, and at least your own Congressman. Also, congratulate the 15 Senators who demonstrated patriotism. Persuade as many persons as possible to get involved. This is also a great white consciousness raising opportunity. Do the work, or we lose forever. JamesB, Points well taken. Despite my allegedly nonexistent but very abstract grad program, I’m very practical wrt white preservationist issues. If we can’t stop the invasion, all else, all theorizing, strikes me as only parlor games. I question how much useful activism WNs really do. I’ve met anti-immigrationists who were racial moderates (by WN standards), but very activist, and thus ironically far more useful to the actual cause of WP. Re my Senatorial selections, well, I could have simply left the whole list, minus a tiny handful I know we won’t persuade (Schumer, Durbin, McCain, etc). But as it is I already have over half the US Senate. I had to make some selections, insofar as the real objective was to persuade American readers to contact as many Senatorial offices as they could. Calling takes time. Note I ended up contacting all of those I listed above plus my worthless Senators Feinstein and Boxer. Despite the reasonable efficiency of the Capitol switchboard, it still took me many hours yesterday afternoon and again this morning (between sudden disconnects, claims the switchboard operators were “all with other callers”, and actually getting through and talking to live staffers). So we’re playing percentages here, effort vs likelihood of reward. My impression is that very, very few Democrats will be patriotic on this (and I was correct: no Democrat voted No today; I predict no more than 5 at most will end up voting against the final amnesty bill; and I think the greater likelihood is that ALL will support it). I listed 13 above (plus Maine Independent King, who caucuses with them). Those 13 are all either formally going to retire; from states that Romney won; or have expressed some reservations about immigration (re King, I thought he might be reachable, as an independent from a still very white state; also, I may have been wrong re Harkin’s tenure - isn’t he going to retire, too?). Your arguments wrt Harkin and Warren, and why they should be against amnesty, of course are sound, but so are most WN arguments generally. The issue is political effectiveness. You presumably know that the modern Democrat Party is committed above all else to white dispossession. Working class mobility or wage growth? Environmental preservation? “Justice” for America’s “left behind minorities” (blacks and Indians)? Even these liberal arguments against immigration carry no weight when the enemy sees a chance to further denude America of its whiteness. Harkin and Warren are well known liberals. The chances that they do the right thing viz whites I put at nil. By all means contact them if you think you can be persuasive. But I strongly aver that this battle to save America will be lost or won within the GOP, and possibly with those Democrats up for reelection in Romney-won states (eg Pryor, Begich, Hagan, Landrieu). 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:51 | # Apparently the news story I read was slightly incorrect re the final vote. There were three abstentions, not one. HERE ARE TODAY’S CHAMPIONS WHO TRIED TO STOP THE AMNESTY BILL IN ITS TRACKS ALABAMA: Sessions & Shelby ARKANSAS: Boozman IDAHO: Crapo & Risch ILLINOIS: Kirk IOWA: Grassley KANSAS: Roberts LOUISIANA: Vitter OKLAHOMA: Inhofe SOUTH CAROLINA: Scot TEXAS: Cruz UTAH: Lee WYOMING: Barrasso & Enzi Everybody else voted YES, except for three who didn’t vote: ALASKA: Murkowski ARIZONA: McCain OKLAHOMA: Coburn
OTOH, I can’t believe some of the supporters. Thune? Toomey? Why? Rand Paul? (that really pisses me off - I had a good conversation with his staff) Deb Fischer? WHY? Dan Coats? WTF? This is disgraceful. WPs had better step up in the coming weeks and pound these GOP weaklings. Let them know THEY WILL BE TEA-BAGGED if they do not stop amnesty. WE DON’T WANT “IMPROVEMENTS” TO THE BILL. WE WANT ILLEGAL ALIENS DEPORTED, AND LEGAL IMMIGRATION REDUCED OR ELIMINATED.
11
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:51 | # Elizabeth Warren is a wild-eyed “anti-racist”. An enemy of WN for sure. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:25 | #
JB, I forgot to say that the seniority issue was meaningless in this context. I was searching for a simple list of the current US Senators, and this was what I came up with first. On a more general note: you ought to call up Warren and try to get across your inarguable points above. But, based on your observation of and experience with American politics, do you really believe that liberals will ever be persuaded to support the side of ANY issue which favors whites? My observations suggest that liberalism is, at root, a simplistic antiwhite ideology; that is, that the liberal position on any issue can be determined by ascertaining what is most detrimental to white EGI. This is not to say that liberals don’t take positions on matters where race is not really at issue, such as “gay marriage” (though even there, the liberal position will always or almost always coincide with what is most anti-white EGI; thus, I would argue that gay marriage will further devalue traditional marriage, in turn leading to fewer white families, and thus fewer white children). But if one of even their core tenets happens to be bad for minorities (“bad” understood in narrow nonwhite wealth/power terms, not in terms of, say, morality or spiritual health, let alone broader national and social goods), or disproportionately good for whites, they will find a reason to jettison it. Liberalism, in other words, is an ideological /rhetorical smokescreen for nonwhite nationalism. I give a 75% chance that not a single Senate Democrat will oppose amnesty; a 100% chance that not more than two will by the last vote. This will only change if the GOP successfully weighs the final bill down with so many unpalatable border security amendments (fat chance, however, unless we at the grassroots force them to) that Democrats en masse oppose it. 14
Posted by Jon on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:54 | #
Jim, unless that’s rhetorical I must I must point out that while he is against one policy that would somewhat affect the rentiers squeezing us as though we were lemons, the one you ask that question of is squarely behind them in every other wise with regard to the long-term transfers you speak of. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:33 | # Its not rhetorical. While I am touched by your concern for my naivete, the question still stands. 16
Posted by Jon on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:12 | #
That was aimed at the those in the gallery who might not be familiar with Mr. Haller’s “let them eat cake” economic philosophy. 17
Posted by Jon on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:49 | #
Maybe he figured out that he did really need a stinking badge after all.
18
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:56 | # Too little too late, El Rusho. Where were you during Dubyah’s eight years of presiding over a de facto open Southern border policy? But then again, your resistance is better late than never. Rush Limbaugh Admits Being Depressed, But Returns To Amnesty Battle http://www.vdare.com/posts/rush-limbaugh-admits-being-depressed-but-returns-to-amnesty-battle 19
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:27 | #
In a free market system that company you speak of would most certainly fall victim to market forces. The competition would surely hire those more qualified employees; then in due time, out compete the company that uses nepotism in its hiring practices. In a free market system, where qualifications and ability are paramount, whites do exceedingly well—blacks and Mestizos not so much. That’s why the Left regards capitalism as racist. Generally speaking, blacks and Latinos need the force of government to intervene and force companies to hire them. If you take the position of wanting to shrink the size and scope of the government, you are automatically deemed racist. That’s the reason why the Left so viciously attacked the TEA Party as racists.
20
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:42 | # When Leftists/socialists sit in positions of power, they invariably engage in this type of anti free market malevolency.
This means criminals will have hiring priority since not hiring them will subject the employers/businesses to crippling lawsuits.
21
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:24 | # ............... It is done with a Jewish eye toward “correcting” previously covert White means of fighting Black crime with the “war on drugs”...which was really a war on Black crime. Jewish cultural advocacy of Blacks has them complaining that there are more Blacks under “criminal correction” now than had been enslaved in 1850. Their legal teams have construed this as the new means of discrimination: a felony record as discriminatory red-tape to keep Blacks out of opportunities. 22
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:13 | # Thorn, I precede you in free market thought by decades and orders of magnitude more actual effectiveness (have you done anything remotely as effective as getting legislation drafted and signed into law at the federal level outlawing a federal agency from competing with private startups in high technology?) . The one thing Euroman has going for him at this point is his individualism and that is not synonymous with free market because individuals differ in their preferred assumptions of social causality. Euroman is genetically more capable of saying “Let’s agree to disagree and go our separate ways on this issue.” than are other races. If we don’t capitalize on this, we’re doomed. Of course, DanielS has his own problems with this as he will block Sortocracy if he does not have guarantees that some criteria of his is satisfied over the whole of the territory of Europe. He’d apparently sooner sacrifice Euroman’s existence than give up a single acre of Europe. 23
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:52 | # Euroman is genetically more capable of saying “Let’s agree to disagree and go our separate ways on this issue.” than are other races. If we don’t capitalize on this, we’re doomed. Of course, DanielS has his own problems with this as he will block Sortocracy I will? I don’t want to block Sortocracy at all. Let’s get on with it.
I acknowledge that I was seeking agreement, coordination, cooperation, but guarantees? About what?
I’d give parts up provisionally in tactical retreat, but why would you want (the concerned parties, viz. those in those parts) to give up parts of Europe? Preceding such consideration, however, I don’t think we’re at the stage of claiming European land, part, all, whatever, but rather tying to organize ourselves as a people, agreeing to disagree about different priorities and ways for different European folks. 24
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:04 | # I don’t recall saying that I would not give up an inch of Europe (though it is true, that I don’t see why we should have to in theory, and not for anything beyond tactical retreat); but for me, while the Euro-DNA nation includes claims to our traditional lands and more, nation is transcendent of that - the nation is our people first and foremost. I do recall balking about people almost automatically saying that they would give up parts of The US. I find it offensive how quickly WN’s say, “let’s give Blacks the South East U.S., etc. I believe that it is for us to gather ourselves, whether in our people or in territories, not to proclaim that Blacks or others may have a particular area. When it comes to places like Britain, I don’t see why the natives should have to give parts up. It certainly is not my prerogative to advise they do - perhaps only in tactical retreat until repatriation operations are completed. 25
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:10 | # Anyway, no. The central idea of the Euro-DNA Nation is to save our people, and their kinds*, irrespective of location, while acknowledging that location and habitats can be profound.
26
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:21 | # Coordination, by the way, is not the same thing as control. It is a way of mutual understanding so that people first and foremost do not interfere with one another’s objectives. 27
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:29 | # Another substantial comment lost. I forgot to copy and paste. Fuck it. I leave MR until this glitch is repaired. 28
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:12 | # S. 774 is exponentially worse than Simpson Mazzoli Act of 1986 by a factor of 50! What’s next? The full implementation of the NAU? The Immigration Surge Act By Peter Brimelow {snip}
{snip} 29
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:18 | # Lady Ann gets it! ... well, for the most part, anyway .... —
30
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:27 | # Center for Immigration Studies reports:
31
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:22 | # WE MUST FIGHT!! For Americans:
32
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:29 | # Just a reminder of what we all are really fighting for:
33
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:39 | # Leon, Thanks for the heads up. Back to the phone. Sander Levin is my Congressman but you never know…. 34
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:11 | # Thorn, strawberries are not at all what we are fighting for. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:06 | # Thorn and others, Get the word out: it’s not known traitors we must be calling, it’s GOP fence-sitters (along with rural/white state Democrats - in eg, WV, PA, WI, Iowa, etc). Do this: say you oppose any path to citizenship for illegals, and want the border secured, and the illegal aliens deported. Then say you are so outraged that you will be giving a large sum of money (>$1000) to ANY GOP primary challenger from the Right they might face, unless they henceforth oppose ANY granting of citizenship to illegals. They take notice of this. Entire call time: 1-3 minutes. Number of Republicans in Congress: fewer than 300. CALL THEM ALL. And spread this tactic around across the internet. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:00 | # Interesting question: Suppose this amnesty bill passes (as I fear it will). This will turn 30 million illegal Mexican aliens into US citizens after some specified period. It also increases legal non-familial immigration, and will dramatically increase family reunification immigration. The upshot is that whites will certainly become a minority by 2030, and possibly by 2020. So where do American white preservationists go from there? Do we collectively throw in the towel, admit defeat, and ... what? Focus on Europe, or fight for our people within the US? And if the latter, is the goal ethnosecession and racial sovereignty, or just the development of organizations to fight perpetually for white rights and empowerment within a nonwhite-dominant society? 37
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:35 | #
What we can do is keep trying to instill a sence of racial pride within our fellow whites. Of course that task is almost insurmountable in the face of a media driven culture which deliberately demoralizes whites on a continual basis. I know it ain’t much. But as it stands now, it’s just about all we’ve got. As far as amnesty becoming a reality, I always believed it was a reality before the first Mexican illegal alien (post Simpson/Mazzoli) stepped foot on U.S. soil. This invasion was carefully preplanned by our own ruling banking/corporate class, concomitantly executed by the political class, then sold/force-fed to the masses by the intellectual class. The elites covered all the bases. I must say, I’ve come full circle and am now where I was 20 or so years ago when GHW Bush spoke about the NWO [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynA-jkUbRwk ] He wasn’t kidding. What we are witnessing today is the NWO being built by first forming then joining regional trading blocs then eventually form the whole. Again, here’s how amnesty ties into this grand NWO scheme: Mass illegal migration of tens of millions of Mexicans into the USA, then the subsequent granting them citizenship are incremental steps towards the implementation of the NAU. And, of course, the NAU, EU, APEC et al. are incremental steps towards the full implementation of the NWO, i.e., Word government. The pattern in the process is undeniable. 39
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:26 | # When contacting Democratic Congressmen, read them this and ask them why Democrats, nearly unanimously, hate working citizens: “To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports… Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, September 8-9, 2005 40
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:20 | # Senator Warren, I’ve followed, and treasured, your work on household bankruptcy for years. Your move to Washington D. C. and shift to emphasis on creditor reform, while urgent, may have distracted you from the underlying cause of family debt: Lowered risk-adjusted household income—particularly when that risk-adjustment gives appropriate weight to the large, fixed, relentless expenses. In considering immigration reform, please consider temporarily returning to your academic roots and read this critical study: “To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports… Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income, by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, September 8-9, 2005 http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/gordon-Dew-Becker.pdf Thank you, James Bowery 41
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:55 | # LH writes: “And if the latter, is the goal ethnosecession and racial sovereignty, or just the development of organizations to fight perpetually for white rights and empowerment within a nonwhite-dominant society?” Thorn responds: “What we can do is keep trying to instill a sence of racial pride within our fellow whites. Of course that task is almost insurmountable in the face of a media driven culture which deliberately demoralizes whites on a continual basis. I know it ain’t much. But as it stands now, it’s just about all we’ve got.” The answer to LH’s question and Thorn’s false dilemma is Sortocracy for 2 reasons: 1) The brainwashing of Euroman by his enemies is so thorough that they “think” (actually, are possessed of a vague moral zeitgeist-driven feeling) that government imposed integration is supporting individualism. 2) The only thing that will break through their zombie-conditioning is suffering the full consequences of their indoctrinated stupor while seeing others of their kind not so suffering because they are not so indoctrinated. 42
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:30 | # DanielS writes: “It might be good time to revisit the DNA Nation” “DNA Nation” is so vague* that it probably cannot be successfully coddled even by Sortocracy simply because of your posturing that you’re going to bomb people with whom you disagree for the crime of living in Europe. Indeed, one thing appears not to be vague: What you _say_ you are doing is forming a military by first peacefully forming a DNA nation that, of course—precisely because you have made clear your intentions to not honor agreements—would be militarily opposed not just by the enemies of Euroman but by the zombified Euromen they have made of human beings to do their dirty work. You would lead Euroman to his doom. *Waiving the failure of “Tractatus” around is no excuse for failure be disciplined in your communication, nor is it an excuse to dismiss rigorous definitions. Wittgenstein was being Jewish enough to fail to understand the function of words as pointers to observable realities and that if definitions fail for that purpose, they are quite simply the wrong definitions. Verbal articulation is, in this sense, analogous to physical articulation when you point at something with your finger. Your skeleton imposes a “grammar” on your physical articulation. There is no truth nor falsehood in a particular posture or verbal expression. There is merely act of pointing things out to others. They either see what you are pointing at or they don’t. 43
Posted by Jon on Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:26 | #
Yes they’re working hard to put the finishing touches on that project aren’t they? Good thing we’ve got the Christian churches in our corner opposing every initiative and fighting them tooth and nail every step of the… Hey, wait a minute. 45
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:26 | # Jim, I don’t agree with what you say in post 42, but it is a long bunch of accusations that I will address in a moment.. 46
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:01 | # There have to be multiple avenues of response: Instilling pride in race and knowledge of both racial reality, and our (uniquely superior) civilization. Forming ‘brotherhood’ and mutual protective organizations (as Jews do) to bind whites together for our common defense and political empowerment, as well as to make sure that younger whites can find acceptable potential marital partners. Lobbying for white interests at the political level. Who is organizing whites (or anyone) to stop this amnesty? Encouraging whites to ingather in defensible geographic areas (NOT LA! I’m getting out once the housing market picks up to where I want it). Lastly, keeping alive the eternal dream of a sovereign, secessionist White Republic. WPs have a very long way to go… 47
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:23 | # posted by James Bowery on June 14, 2013, 12:55 PM | # LH writes: “And if the latter, is the goal ethnosecession and racial sovereignty, or just the development of organizations to fight perpetually for white rights and empowerment within a nonwhite-dominant society?” Thorn responds: “What we can do is keep trying to instill a sence of racial pride within our fellow whites. Of course that task is almost insurmountable in the face of a media driven culture which deliberately demoralizes whites on a continual basis. I know it ain’t much. But as it stands now, it’s just about all we’ve got.” The answer to LH’s question and Thorn’s false dilemma is Sortocracy for 2 reasons: 1) The brainwashing of Euroman by his enemies is so thorough that they “think” (actually, are possessed of a vague moral zeitgeist-driven feeling) that government imposed integration is supporting individualism. I can agree that the integrationist narrative put across by Jewish and other interests are so subtle, pervasive and enforced with such power (in some ways enforced by “brainwashed” Eurowoman gatekeepers, btw, as it serves their short term gains), that it can seem impossible to generate viable counter narratives - rather narratives and concepts which represent our sovereignty. However, these alternatives can be conceived and coordinated in reality. To propose otherwise would be to say we are all of one mind. No, we are of different perspectives that may contribute to efforts which are symbiotic of White individual and groups. Yes, there are bad White people, to be sure, and there are ways to sort them out (not only the ways you propose).
Well, now you are being a bit more clear about your aims. That you wish to destroy any and all efforts to organize on behalf of Whites, especially where they use words that fall short of pointy demonstrations. That is, all and any infrasctructure which might allow people to cooperate should be (or allowed to be) destroyed, so that only individuals who are particularly autonomous in their ability to fend for themselves and their family will survive. Whereas I do not only value this feature of European people. I believe its genesis is of more cooperative type of European, perhaps more friendly. Moreover, the highly autonomous technocrat kind may tend to lack judgment and perspective on ecological and systemic wholes. They can rape the context with their analytics, the upshot being a collectivist, systemic runaway that they contribute to anyway, unbeknownst. I very much value European people who can cooperate toward the interests of European peoples. Those who like and are capable of more independence, I value leaving them alone and their happiness. I would oppose those who tried to destroy their option, their way of life. Perhaps I have become so intent on cooperation for the harsh, individualistic competitiveness that I experienced in my family and in Western society, but it is not simply a reaction to America’s “brainwashing” that anything but sheer individualism is evil communism. I genuinely like to cooperate with people, and for us to have gentle, considerate treatment of one another - including acknowledging the distinct contributions of individuals. No, I am satisfied that on some level we cooperate and negotiate our lives together; you prefer less cooperation than me, and that is fine, I suppose we can agree to disagree on values. You like technically gifted, highly autonomous men (I believe women tend to like that, so I don’t see what you are so concerned about in the preservation of this type), and I value men who can cooperate and sort out a more or less fair system for Whites, as individuals, ways and groups.
DanielS writes: “It might be good time to revisit the DNA Nation” “DNA Nation” is so vague* that it probably cannot be successfully coddled even by Sortocracy That isn’t true. The Euro-DNA Nation is not vague. You are fusing flexibility with vagary. It is just the opposite of vague, it is an appreciation of rigorous criteria. Here is one criteria that may be applied in part, though it will require clarifications by a Dasein type. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml However, it is flexible enough in recognizing that our survival as a people is a concern which may be in large part independent of particular lands. And, on the other hand, that lands are necessary and that some particular lands are of profound importance, relation even, to some European peoples evolution. So, it has a practical eye toward coordinating genetic types and ways, as they are both important. Though it is acknowledged that European genetic types are more important than lands, even. I have provided the example to GW that when England is covered by glacier again, the English will not want to be rooted there.
It does recognize that a larger cooperation among European peoples is probably necessary to to hold up to the collective organizations of non-Europeans who would destroy us incidentally or deliberately.
You are fusing the Euro DNA Nation with the observation that nations may have an air force and that European peoples may have a distinguishing advantage in that regard. I didn’t say that I would bomb people whom I simply disagree with for the crime of living in Europe. Bombing is a terrible thing. If air force is organized (and it is best if it is just an intimidation thereof) turns out to be what is required in order to restore lands necessary to European peoples - and foreigners cannot be removed through persuasion, negotiation and positive incentives - then it is an option. However, efforts to retake land are very far removed from such a consideration at this point. The matter is one of organizing our people - the ones who do not deserve to die will naturally be concerned with preserving their genotypes.
That is so untrue, Jim. I am proposing organizational structures for Europeans. Will it require the coordination of fighting that goes beyond pair-wise duels? Probably yes, if we are to survive. However, we can coordinate with your preference as well. No, I have not shown that I will not honor agreements. In fact, there has been little if any negotiation to agree upon. would be militarily opposed not just by the enemies of Euroman but by the zombified Euromen they have made of human beings to do their dirty work. You would lead Euroman to his doom. No, I would not. I am proposing an option for those who want it. BTW, I knew your personality well enough to have anticipated that you would not exercise the option of participating.
I will dismiss your definitions for practical purposes only where they are overly focused, to the point where they are not connecting with the context of their practicality. I don’t believe that I have failed in my communications, though most of us, myself included, can do better. Where I may not be clear to someone (often because I take something for granted, have made a typo, don’t want to repeat myself too much), I am always willing to be more clear about what I mean.
Definitions may be connected to observable realities (an inspirational metaphor might be connected to brain chemistry, for example), but it is not practical to ignore the social feel of the context and to aspire to some sort of sheer, digital communication language. Verbal articulation is, in this sense, analogous to physical articulation when you point at something with your finger. Your skeleton imposes a “grammar” on your physical articulation. There is no truth nor falsehood in a particular posture or verbal expression. There is merely act of pointing things out to others. They either see what you are pointing at or they don’t. And if they don’t see what I mean, then I am willing to clarify. 48
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:53 | # I’ll take it a step further, defense of Europeans doesn’t even require an air force. I just got sick of hearing that we are doomed to cede various lands to non-Europeans and that provides one of the most obvious examples of how it is not necessarily true that we must. However, there are other ways, viz. organization and accountability is among the best ways of defending our people and necessary lands. I suppose you will allege that I am trying to make some eusocial insect out of you and others, or tactlessly lead them to their doom and that is not true. I always feel like I am having to Unread some 1950’s anti-communist sci-fi novel, when European peoples need to talk about ways of coordinating their defense of themselves and to acknowledge the fact that our evolution has at least some necessary social basis and interrelation - an acknowledgement that is necessary to undoing the phony Cartesian concept of pure individualism that has contributed so heavily to the destruction to European peoples. This concept of civilization breakdown and all coordination being the evil road to eusociality, to our being subsumed into the brown mass, is in fact, more likely to lead to our doom as groups, ways and individual kinds. 49
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 10:29 | # one more note on air force: it would not necessarily have to be marshaled by conventional means nor deployed to conventional ends - bombing and destruction. E.g. An air force might lift people to and fro 50
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:11 | # Finally, the collapse of civilization or integrating infrastructure might uncover and reveal those European peoples more willing to be cooperative with other Europeans, not only the more individualistic, more independent types. I just think that if you are going to take down the structures which link and support parasitic, Eusocial types, and those that are non-White especially, that you ought to be focusing more exactly on those specific linking structures. Yes, it is you who is being vague with this concept of “civilization as the grand dragon” and not rigorously focusing on those features that have been woven into it, viz. modernity’s linking infrastructure, rules and universalism, and its proponents (largely Jewish interests) that are advancing the reverse rule structures of sound, ecological ideas. 51
Posted by Jon on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:16 | #
A constructed logical language like loglan has its advantages, such as precise markers for abstraction levels, mood and aspect (which is kept distinct from tense) and no syntactic and little or no semantic ambiguity as well as no grammatical problems like irregular verbs and extreme orthographic-phonetic variability 52
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:30 | # Ok, let me clarify, to add that it is not practical to delay all conceptualization until a complete, logical language is at hand. In fact, it is likely out of the how questions of those practical endeavors that logical distinctions will emerge as necessary. As Whitehead had said, one cannot continually investigate everything but must work from a given state of partial knowledge from time to time. Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis. It is not as if its vagaries cannot be refined or its premises revisited. 53
Posted by Nelson on Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:42 | #
James, By “words” here, do you mean a specific type of word, such as written word, spoken word, or thought of word, or do you mean any of these types? And when you say that words point to observable realities, do you mean that they directly point to physical realities rather than point to mental likenesses which then point to physical realities? I ask because the traditional view of Western linguistics, coming from Aristotle, is that mental likenesses point to observable realities, and that spoken words point to the mental likenesses, not to the observable realities. Written words then point to the spoken words. Does your view dispute this traditional view? 54
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 00:35 | # The neo-liberal order has become a political no-man’s land, in which no organic formula of rule is now in sight. 55
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:25 | # DanielS writes: “Yes, it is you who is being vague with this concept of “civilization as the grand dragon” and not rigorously focusing on those features that have been woven into it, viz. modernity’s linking infrastructure, rules and universalism, and its proponents (largely Jewish interests) that are advancing the reverse rule structures of sound, ecological ideas.” Here is my, previously presented, start on an ontology which you characterize as either “vague” or falling into the reductionist error of Tractatus.
To continue in the ontology of mythic creatures: Serpent: A gang. (As in “Moses raised up a serpent in the desert.”) Dragon: A militant gang. (as in “George the dragon slayer.”) Viper: A conspiratorial gang. (As in “Ye generation of vipers.”) Sidewinder: (American old west) A viper, dragon or component thereof. Dwarf: A component of a gang too specialized to act as an individual. Now, let me address, yet again, your posture toward my advocacy of natural duel in the present context: The present context is all pervasive perpetual war. There is no peace. There is no place for individuals. All individuals must submit to if not join a gang, or perish. A race of individualists in the present context is doomed if they do not consciously recognize this and act accordingly. Other races have the advantage that they are more prone to act without conscious thought toward this kind of group selectionist end. The essence of Euroman’s greatness is his integrity as an individual. This integrity demands a formal declaration of war—an oath if you will—for him to temporarily form a contractual relationship with others until the object of the declaration of war is achieved. I have, in Sortocracy, clearly defined a declaration of war:
This has the necessary characteristics to unite Euroman in precisely this way and, in so doing, identify the enemy to be destroyed—utterly destroyed—for the individuals so bound to once again be free—that is to say, to exist in peace which is to say they can fully express their integrity as individuals including natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. Your problem with this appears entirely based on the fact that the racialism is implicit rather than explicit. I do not, as does Jon, define my race to be “god”. My race is superior to other races not because it is my race but because it furthers, through biological selection by artificial criteria—culture—the manifest direction of creation by recognizing the value of the individual. I am fortunate to have been born into this race even if it is destroyed by the races born of cultures of group integrity that naturally act as group organisms and therefore see that as moral. That would be the twilight of the gods indeed. My loyalty to my race and its survival is incidental to my loyalty to Creation and the Joy thereof. I will not stand silent and see sacrificed the essential godhood of the individuals of my race on the altar of mere power. 56
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:17 | # I will not stand silent and see sacrificed the essential godhood of the individuals of my race on the altar of mere power. I see your concern here a false either/or.
Noble - I would not try to undo it as a category of that which is to be honored and protected. But I’m afraid it must be protected since, as Darwin says, the most sophisticated organisms do not always survive. Perhaps that brings me to the first definition that I would contest for its insulting name - Dwarfs. You are not only insulting people who might serve with honor and decency, even the interests of the more self sufficient kind, but in the end, insulting the noble act of willing, cooperative decency on which we all depend. Thus, you would be insulting all of us, as dwarfs, for those acts of cooperation as we recognize our interrelation and enjoy the beauty of living amongst, watching and helping our attributes to flourish. That is, we are all dwarfs by that definition to some extent. The last thing we need at this point is to besmirch our interrelatedness. I don’t know if it is a related metaphor (maybe), but rabbits have been “girdling” (gnawing he bark all around the trunks) some of my saplings. The veins which go just underneath the bark, from the roots to the leaves, are removed from circulatory connection and the tree will die. I think that you are honoring only one part of a full evolutionary process and system and that this may be residual Cartesianism probably by way of Christianity. There are better arguments available than I can make as to why an effort like the Tractatus and the Vienna School of logical positivism based on it (Interestingly, the Vienna School of economics ties into that), failed, but I will do what I can do - adding my own perspective. First of all, you should be happy that a German physicist and mathematician slayed this dragon. I don’t need to complement Germans for this, but I like to. I prefer to emphasize harmless, good and excellent things they do rather than historical negatives. Not because I have to, but I invoke them in hopes that you and people like you, will respect them, if not me, to appreciate that building a Tractatus-like language may provide some helpful heuristics at times, but it is not likely to yield an “unassailable” relation to facts in the reflexive effects of observer/observed relation, temporal processes and the flux of relevance. Better said, it is well and good to try to refine these markers unless the effort divests of the relevant context and becomes counter productive.
Here’s an example of a high signal to noise ratio ontology: Individual: a sexual organism.
I like that one, wouldn’t care to mess with it.
But I would like to help with that individual selection, if I may. I would find a means for you to have children of your partner selection if you needed and if I could.
That one sounds pretty good. I’ll leave that alone as a working hypothesis. Organism: the aggregation of replicators against which selective pressure is applied. Ok. But again, as the most sophisticated organisms do not always survive in “nature” there may be a necessary “cultural” (artificial selection) component as you say. Some of my trees have thorns on their bark and they are thriving while I may have to protect the bark of the others.
I see you’ve added, “based on transmissible morals” That’s interesting.
Hm
k
hm
I guess that would deserve the pejorative term “gang” if these specialized roles became rigidly evolved so that they would necessarily relegate some upon their very birth, their very evolution, to permanent subservience of their over all ecologically indiscriminant predatory organism.
That would follow. If I may compliment, I think well done. Nation: Individuals related by consanguinity and congeniality. I tend to use Nation this way. I believe it is proper and some who may misunderstand Nationalism and what I mean by it are therefore mistakenly averse.
Ok. That’s a good one. I believe it serves to clarify where the Nation States can and have gone wrong.
I don’t know about a couple aspects of this one. I would tend to hold out the possibility that a State could be something based on rules (obligatory/optional/prohibited) for a given population; and the governance of those rules being for the most part valid - people being able to leave, provided a sufficient account, is probably an important part of that validity. Regarding the cities, my understanding is that some moderate-sized cities may actually be better, ecologically speaking than to try to put everyone on a large piece of land. Maybe cities are evil and inevitably destructive, but the one that I live in is quite nice at the moment. I admit there are bad auguries.
As you know, I’ve never agreed with the definition of civilization that you use. I wonder if your critique might be helped with a rules model (obligatory, legitimate, prohibited), such that you could specify further those aspects which you do not like - those which force integration of individuals, as opposed to those which might help foster benign efforts - such as space exploration.
Well, we might agree that gangs are bad. But as in the case of dwarfs, we might not want to take away the noble moniker of an unfortunate necessity. Anyway, I can agree, we are at war, like it or not.
hmm. how about adding voluntary, symbiotic cooperation?
Serpent: A gang. (As in “Moses raised up a serpent in the desert.”) The metaphor makes some sense, as in the segmentation of reptiles, which can simply grow back if lost with no effect to the overall organism.
Also good.
LOL. Good too.
LOL
The present context is all pervasive perpetual war. There is no peace. There is no place for individuals. Not much place for individuals who like to cooperate and initiate creative, symbiotic projects, either. We are suckers to the vipers. All individuals must submit to if not join a gang, or perish. Hm.
Seems true enough
I don’t think that is the only great thing about us. In fact, it has good and bad aspects. For example, strident individualists can be impervious to life span and evolutionary processes of their people, even as those processes necessarily relate to them. This integrity demands a formal declaration of war—an oath if you will—for him to temporarily form a contractual relationship with others until the object of the declaration of war is achieved. That could well be. It makes sense.
Personally, I find torture disgusting. I don’t foresee the need to dispute the rest of it
Again, I don’t foresee the need to dispute this.
Well, as an option for an aspect of one testable human ecology, ok. But I am highly skeptical of it as a viable and just criteria, so that I would seek a place where that means of conflict resolution were not part of its rule structure: obligatory, legitimate, prohibited. Your problem with this appears entirely based on the fact that the racialism is implicit rather than explicit. It could be a big part of “my problem”, yes.
Well, neither do I. In fairness to Jon has shown some flexibility on that, but has made good arguments that he recommends this so as to animate god, make god a part of us and something that can die - thus instilling the respect for imminence and urgency. Whereas I, on the other hand, look upon my race as my religion. It is not god, but it is a semi transcendent cause of devotion, a whole with many features for consideration, imminent manifestation being highly important amongst. My race is superior to other races not because it is my race I don’t know or care if my race is superior to other races in all respects. But I am particularly concerned for our defense where we are more moral (more symbiotic, less violent and imposing), creative and where our women and men are of types whose preservation strikes me as eminently worthy. but because it furthers, through biological selection by artificial criteria—culture—the manifest direction of creation by recognizing the value of the individual. Well, I think individualism can be fine and I can see ways to maintain this quality; by the same token you might be over-abstracting it in valuation and underrating its negative sides. I am fortunate to have been born into this race even if it is destroyed by the races born of cultures of group integrity that naturally act as group organisms and therefore see that as moral. If this individualism is valued to the extant that it destroys the very process that facilitates that individualism it is not so fatalistically fortunate. We might hope that some of that individualism might be used to help the systemic survival of those who are not quite so individual yet - like White children - who are losing the systemic roots of what would foster their individuality.
Again, I see that as rather a false either/or. 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:27 | # Harland writes… “In a world of many atheists, who think themselves too sophisticated for group-god beliefs, clarity requires us to update the laws of Moses…To bring the laws of Moses into current thought patterns, they would need only be changed to read: You shall love your state with all your soul, mind and strength - for your own is a jealous state that will surely kill all the unbelievers…It is now the states that promote the significant serpent making pseudo-morality that the individual is but merely a ‘part’ and the unit having priority in willed action is the group…The question now becomes; Can there any longer be anything… but serpent against serpent? Is it now the states that promote the group-god pseudo-morality and actively defy the manifest morality of the universal creative intelligence?” 58
Posted by Jon on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:34 | # The idea that an all-knowng, all-powerful creator god would be “jealous” and demand nearly constant praise and worship is ridiculous on its face, never mind His being subject to fits of rage when His bad clay pots behaved like, you know, fallible humans, a tendency that he could easily have consulted His omniscience to predict. It seems more consistent with proper attitudes toward God being a model for the behaviour of the masses toward its earthly authorities than a being whose scale compared to us makes the scalar difference between us and ants seem quite small by comparison. 59
Posted by Jon on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:21 | #
That is a mischaracterisation. I talk of Our sacred People, (i. e., concrete, not abstract like “my race”). The characteristics of “Our god” are not what’s traditionally considered divine. It’s more a conceptual device to bring him (common gender) closer to us. You may think of it as the equivalent of the use of the word in this context: “money is my god”—obviously if I said that I shouldn’t mean by that that money created the heavens and the earth. Our god does not demand anything, especially “worship”. Those White people who could characterise their feelings toward their people, “Our sacred People is my god” don’t think of him in the same sense as people of traditional religions think of their divinities. Generally, if I may be so bold as to speak for them, they just want him to live, or, “the 14 words”. “Our god” differentiates him from “yóur god(s)” or “your God” or more important, “the Israelites’ God” and makes Our religion unique to us.
60
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:52 | # Nelson, I think it appropriate to quote Sokolowski on the original meaning of “phenomenology” in response to your question:
61
Posted by Jon on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:32 | # The problems in describing and communicating phenomena as well as the philosophical differences about them might lie in the fact that we only have nouns and verbs to describe them. Our language is not precise when it comes to levels of abstraction and levels of reality. Perhaps we need a new type of word (other than adverb, adjective, determiner or linking/locational word) that is neither nominal nor verbal or maybe both. 62
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:38 | # DanielS responds:
Let’s not mince words here: In overcoming this subversion there is the natural temptation to denigrate that nobility. I will not stand for this. The asexual multicellular design pattern is an accomplished Creation achieving its ultimate expression in sexual being. Sexual being is required for moral being—a new Creation involving conscious appreciation of prior Creation. Humans are capable of moral being, but we are struggling for it.
This is the role of culture, Daniel. This is why I say that seeking an appropriate response to JudeoChristianity must be a natural outgrowth of the ontology project.
I will go beyond this to say that not only are we all Dwarves “to some extent” but that we are all sexually perverse to some extent. We cannot experience salvation ourselves until we confess the depths of our sin and degradation. Which brings me to the ontology of “sin” within the context of answering JudeoChristianity: Sin: Silencing the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit: That heritable living moral sense passed down to us by the Creator/Creation Being in us and in whom we are Being. The words of my ontology point to that moral sense. Recapitulating the joy of multicellular cooperation at the expense its ultimate expression in our sexual being—in its ultimate expression in our individuality—is immoral. Our conscious recognition that serving us to be individuals requires temporary measures be taken that may result in such recapitulation gives rise to moral outrage when individuals who lack the integrity thereof bear false oaths in pursuit of those necessary measures. The joy of battle in war is the joy of life at the level of the presexual organism’s eat or be eaten stage of existence. It is a degenerate joy that evil would see made perpetual much as it would see the use of opiates during surgery made perpetual so as to turn humans into zombie slaves. 63
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:04 | # Wow, that was a fantastic comment, Jim - beginning with your clarification of what you meant by not standing for sacrificing the nobility of individuals to mere power and through to the end of the comment. Thank You. I’d probably like to put that, as a comment verbatim by you, into the body of the prior post, if it’s ok with you. 64
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:09 | # OK. Some of the comments here should be moved there as well. 65
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:39 | # Getting back on topic ... I suggest patriots spread copy/pastes from vdare in comments sections around the internet: http://www.vdare.com/posts/turbas-in-america-kris-kobachs-house-mobbed-by-dreamers We are in a war. Who cares about “ontology”? 66
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:55 | # Who cares about protecting assets until we’ve sorted out (ontologically) who our people are and who our enemies are? 67
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:26 | # Twisted logic or flat out lying? The spin pro-Amnesty Republicans are subjecting the low information voters to: Graham: GOP In [demographic] ‘Death Spiral’; Will Fail in 2016 Without Immigration So, these SOBs would have us beleive that granting citizenship to an estimated 11 million illegal aliens (which of course will quickly swell to 30 million due to chain migration of which >90% of them will vote Democrat) will ensure Republican sucess at the ballot box? How utterly absurd! Whats even more absurd is these bastards are pulling it off. Unfortunately your average American bought into the catch phrase: “We are a nation of immigrants.” Amongst the low information voters, there is no further thought beyond the aforementioned catch phrase. They haven’t put the meaning of it in its present context, i.e., how massive non-white immigration from the third world will change forever what the Founding Fathers set out to do. Moreover, the low information voters of extremely resistant to accepting the truth about what’s being done to them; viz race-replacement/White genocide. ——————————————————————————-
68
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:23 | # Leon Leon Haller writes: “We are in a war. Who cares about “ontology”?” Leon, you cannot expect to understand the esoteric nature of this discourse. Don’t question it. Get on with your battle. But to put it in exoteric terms, your question is the same as asking “Who cares about Christianity?” 69
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:37 | #
Perhaps, perhaps not. Although I double-majored in Economics (mostly a wasted Keynesian dessert) and History, I took a lot of Philosophy courses in college (general 2 part intro, history of epistemology, logic and language, history of political philo, legal philosophy (in law school) and particular sets of thinkers [Ancient Greeks, British Empiricists, 19th Century Germans]), several from very famous professors (if I told you their names, you’d know my university - one of the better Ivies). I always got very good grades. I have several papers from different subjects that were copied and placed on permanent “reserve” status in my university library, as examples for future students. At least one (of those that I can remember) was from a philo class (Kantian epistemology). I think I also have one on Mill on reserve. In my current program I have also taken several History of Philo classes, though with more of an ancient/medieval than modern emphasis. There are areas of the intellect that are too conceptually sophisticated for me ever to grasp, even if I had elected to pursue them. Higher maths, grad school physics, probably some computer stuff, advanced engineering and (some) design fields, advanced logics. Basically, with anything quantitative, I would eventually run up against IQ limitations (except maybe in economics, whose math I did not find overly difficult, though it was utterly misconceived; economics is not amenable to mathematization, as the Austrian School has amply demonstrated). But philosophy? I think not. As in law, there is nothing there outside the reach of my potential understanding. Two further comments. I have a pretty good ability to sniff out pseudo-intellectual bullshit (there are many recognized scholars who would describe the whole Heideggerian corpus that way). Contemporary intellectual life is replete with poseurs, persons who construct or further the use of artificially obfuscatory jargon, the purpose of which is not to enlighten, but rather, to provide its users with the aura of, well, “esoteric” knowledge - when in fact what’s really on offer is reasonably understandable by any intelligent person, and even banal. Think postmodernism. I think a lot of the conversations here at MR over the years fall into that category. What is being said could be said more simply and plainly. Not doing so provides cover for a lot of b/s. Never forget that wonderful Sokal hoax from the 90s. Second, let’s say “ontological nationalism” really is conveying some baseline truth about our racial plight. What good is it if its insights are only cognitively available to a few? In building political movements, intellectuals are important - but only so far. In our movement/cause we need scientists to establish racial realities (prejudices) on sound scientific footing, and thinkers to deconstruct the false explanations and moral claims of liberalism (as, eg, was done devastatingly in Levin, Why Race Matters). Where exactly do the ontologists fit in? Liberal egalitarian anthropology is certainly harmful to white survival. No doubt liberal ‘ontology’ is, too. But the real problem from the standpoint of the masses (that is, that is understandable by at least the more sophisticated among the masses) is liberal ethics. That (false) ethics is what has rendered whites en masse impotent in the face of their clear need to mobilize to save their ‘ecological niches’ from foreign conquest (and hence themselves from eventual extinction). Within the intellectual component of the racial struggle, it is recasting racial ethics (and then spreading the new wisdom as widely as possible) that is key to our survival, not playing Heideggerian games.
I’ve made many points about Christianity before. One that both Thorn and I make repeatedly is to point to the relative white EGI failures of secular Western societies as compared to the Christian record. Christianity was the religion of the white man (indeed, what was often seen to define the white man, so much that many classic authors use “Christian” and “white” interchangeably - eg, “Traveling across the Dark Continent I had seen nary a Christian lo these three months”) at the peak of his global power. Secularism has been the dominant view throughout the period of his postwar decline. Correlation does not equal causation, of course, but in assessing any Big Human Picture, whose multicausal origins are ultimately too variegated to disentangle with finality, actual successes should be at least given the benefit of the doubt. The US in the 19th Century grew rich behind a protective tariff. This does not mean that the tariff was the main cause of the tremendous economic growth, which may have been more due (economically, I mean; there are always specific technological explanations) to the general climate of laissez-faire; indeed, the tariff may have retarded economic growth from what it otherwise would have been in its absence. But it is unwise to discard the tariff merely on the basis of theory ‘disproving’ it. If something correlates with success, that alone should merit respect, and a rebuttable presumption in its favor. Did Christianity lead to the West’s expansion and triumphs? A very big question. It would take learned volumes to answer it adequately. Perhaps our race achieved magnificence in spite of its faith. Does secularism per se deserve blame for wrecking the West? Another huge issue. Perhaps it was not secularism but liberalism that is at fault in the white collapse, and the fact that liberalism aligns with and promotes secularism is coincidental or tangential. But note one certainly cannot blame Christianity only for the contemporary white collapse. At most, one can say that institutional Christianity has been negatively internally influenced by the more dominant secular liberalism. In the postwar period liberalism, not Christianity, has been in the driver’s seat. 70
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:01 | # But liberalism borrows so easily from Christianity. I think that many of us would say that it has. In fact, it has had a liberal upshot, relegating the ecological delimitation of our concerns to little importance - the seriousness with which we take our lived lives, our co-evolutionary people, our potential partners, our wish for children (despite being people who cannot ascribe to 2,000 year old texts), but rather prefer a different devotion, one that serves our kindred people. And with regard to this: Second, let’s say “ontological nationalism” really is conveying some baseline truth about our racial plight. What good is it if its insights are only cognitively available to a few? In building political movements, intellectuals are important - but only so far. In our movement/cause we need scientists to establish racial realities (prejudices) on sound scientific footing, and thinkers to deconstruct the false explanations and moral claims of liberalism (as, eg, was done devastatingly in Levin, Why Race Matters). Where exactly do the ontologists fit in?
More, important obstructions to those clarifications are being cleared away. Not much of it is in language so difficult that it cannot be translated to common sense for the masses.
71
Posted by Jon on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:54 | # Leon: “Does secularism per se deserve blame for wrecking the West? Another huge issue. Perhaps it was not secularism but liberalism that is at fault in the white collapse, and the fact that liberalism aligns with and promotes secularism is coincidental or tangential.” Here’s your “liberalism”. 72
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:13 | # There is still hope this can be stopped. Boehner has already committed himself to not breaking the Hastert Rule (no bill passes without a Republican majority in support). So we come to the sticking point: Border security. The Democrats along with the Treason Lobby and the Republican traitors insist on granting citizenship to the 11 million illegals as a precondition to securing the borders. The opposition demands securing the borders before granting amnesty. (Note: both sides agree on the issue of granting amnesty, its border security at issue here.) At any rate, this whole process could very well be delayed until after the 2014 elections. Actually the Dems want to delay it because their calculations lead them to beleive it works to their electoral advantage. If the Dems are right in their calculations, and they capture the House in 2014, it’s OVAH! It will mean granting of amnesty with full citizenship rights/benifits to all the illegals and an unsecured Southern border. But in the meantime, there’s still sufficient push back in the House to temporarily stop The Gang of Eight in their tracks….temporarily…. Dana Rohrabacher warns John Boehner on speakership http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dana-rohrabacher-john-boehner-speaker-92954.html 73
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:25 | # As such, our capacity to maintain the semi-transcendent organizational concept of peoplehood over and against crass applications of empiricism and the anti-classification of people that is anti-racism. Thereby connecting to the religious attitude toward our peoples which would have sound, ontological basis. 74
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:04 | # The lying quisling Gang of Eight are forging ahead. Boehner is following suit. Senate Agreement to Bolster Border Security http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/senate-agreement-to-bolster-border-security/ Border security? Yeah right. Does anyone remember how The Secure Fence Act of 2006 turned out? So where’s the fence? Nuff said. 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:58 | # BTW, let’s get back to the real issue, please! THEY’RE SELLING OUT OUR COUNTRY!!!!! CALL EVERY GOP CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM “NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIP!!” I’ve called over 100 hundred so far. We can win this, and buy some time to build white consciousness in preparation for the struggle for the White Republic. If we don’t fight for ourselves, who will? 76
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:32 | # We Elected Liars Like Bob Corker By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | June 20th, 2013
We expected this treachery from a guy like Corker, yet we allowed him to lie to us. Yes, it would be nice if these people would air TV ads and explain their support for amnesty and the need to elect Chuck Schumer Republicans. But they lack the courage to vouch for the veracity of their views when standing before the voters. That’s why it behooves us to identify these trouble-makers early on. We should not be electing establishment-types like Bill Cassidy in Louisiana and Mike Rounds in South Dakota next year. We should not reflexively reelect incumbents like Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander. We should not credulously buy into the lies that will flood airwaves. 78
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:21 | # Heroes and Traitors (we’re still fighting FOR AMERICA, PEOPLE!!):
79
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:10 | # Senator Harkin, In considering immigration reform, please consider its contribution to the centralization of wealth, and the dire impact this has had on family formation since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Nearly all of the wealth resulting from the growth in per capita economic productivity since the 1970s onward has inured to the centralization of wealth and virtually none to labor. Immigration has been a major contributing factor to this, according to “Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income”, by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon, September 8-9, 2005 “To be convincing, a theory must fit the facts, and the basic facts to be explained about income equality are not one but two, that is, not only why inequality rose after the mid-1970s but why it declined from 1929 to the mid-1970s. Three events fit neatly into this U-shaped pattern, all of which influence the effective labor supply curve and the bargaining power of labor: (1) the rise and fall of unionization, (2) the decline and recovery of immigration, and (3) the decline and recovery in the importance of international trade and the share of imports… Partly as a result of restrictive legislation in the 1920s, and also the Great Depression and World War II, the share of immigration per year in the total population declined from 1.3 percent in 1914 to 0.02 percent in 1933, remained very low until a gradual recovery began in the late 1960s, reaching 0.48 percent (legal and illegal) in 2002. Competition for unskilled labor not only arrives in the form of immigration but also in the form of imports, and the decline of the import share from the 1920s to the 1950s and its subsequent recovery is a basic fact of the national accounts.” http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/gordon-Dew-Becker.pdf It is one thing to defer, for other reforms, border security to the future. It is quite another, given the dire state of middle class families, to defer remediation of the centralization of wealth to the future. This key feature of immigration—that it centralizes wealth and reduces stability of working families—is one thing that seems to be favored by both conservatives and liberals. Liberals, by their inaction on the topic as part of immigration reform, and conservatives because it is their job to centralize wealth. Why are liberals letting conservatives destroy middle class families? Sincerely, James Bowery 80
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:59 | # Harkin’s website says they’re experiencing such heavy phone call volume that they’re asking people to please use the web form to submit communications. The announcement conflates this with a “suspicious package” received in physical mail at the Senate mailroom that has slowed down delivery of physical mail, but one has to ask, what does the delivery of physical mail have to do with phone call volume? No answer is even hinted at in the announcement:
http://www.harkin.senate.gov/blogitem.cfm?i=2d372237-9940-4f2f-9804-a05abff1178c Of Course, the Senate is receiving actual bombs in the mail! The only thing that is surprising is that they _aren’t_ receiving improvised explosive drones flying in from all around the nation. 81
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:07 | # Good letter, JB! Not sure if Harkin is amenable to patriotism, but if you think it’ll work, keep going for it. What’s weird is that Grassley is pretty good on immigration. I think the number of true ticket-splitting states like Iowa is rapidly diminishing. Needless to state, I’ve contacted both Feinstein and Boxer, but am mainly concentrating on those GOP RINOs in other states, like the asses Heller and Ayotte in NV and NH. I spent all day today on the phone. I bought a hands-free set a few weeks ago, specifically so that I could get some work done on the computer while endlessly calling the Capitol number I put in the OP. Today was unusual. Numerous times the Capitol line was simply busy. Many other times, the Senatorial offices I was contacting had their lines busy - something I hadn’t experienced before. One small bit of good news was that the staffer with whom I spoke from Sen Wicker’s (R-MS) office said that the Senator would be voting No on the final S.744 bill. I told him he’d better, or I’d be contributing to any future Tea Party opponent. Basically, we need 12 of the following 19 to vote NO, and we’ve killed the thing: AK Murkowski (R-AK) I think the ones in bold are the MOST amenable to voting NO. Unfortunately, that would still leave us one vote shy. We’ve got to get a few Democrats, like Landrieu and Hagan, from Red States running for 2014 reelection. I would contact ALL of those immediately above. If we lose in the Senate, then it will have to be all out political warfare in the House, for the literal survival of whites in North America in the 21st century. 82
Posted by Jon on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 05:34 | #
No true Scotsman… 83
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:44 | # “The American political scene since 2000 is conventionally depicted in high colour. For much native—not to speak of foreign—opinion, the country has cartwheeled from brutish reaction under one ruler, presiding over disaster at home and abroad, to the most inspiring hope of progress since the New Deal under another, personifying all that is finest in the nation; to others, a spectre not even American. For still others, the polarization of opinion they represent is cause for despair, or alternatively comfort in the awakening of hitherto marginalized identities to the threshold of a new majority. The tints change by the light in which they are seen. For a steadier view of us politics, line is more reliable than colour. It is the parameters of the system of which its episodes are features that require consideration. These compose a set of four determinants. The first, and far the most fundamental, of these, is the historical regime of accumulation in question, governing the returns on capital and rate of growth of the economy. The second are structural shifts in the sociology of the electorate distributed between the two political parties. The third are cultural mutations in the value-system at large within the society. Fourth and last—the residual—are the aims of the active minorities in the voter-base of each party. The political upshot at any given point of time can be described, short-hand, as a resultant of this unequal quartet of forces in motion. What remains unchanging, on the other hand, is the monochrome ideological universe in which the system is plunged. . .” Individual freedom and liberty above everything else and in all things - even if a foundational commitment to a radical liberal ontology eventually results in collective disaster. After all collectivism, tout court, is evil; the evil that leads to ‘group selection’ and ‘eusociality’ instead of the proudly independent Lockean yeoman of yesteryear, yes? Not that the modern neo-liberal state is all that bothered about freedom in the broadest sense of the term. It’s effectively but one short step from the world of ‘1984’ - sure you can believe as you wish but not in such a way that even hints at moderate changes in the system. Yes vote for blue team, or vote for the red team but nothing serious will be up for debate! Let alone change. Orwell with better shops and malls (oh my what ‘freedom’) but the same insidious atmospherics. And we will monitor our subjects 24/7 just in case they even hint at getting ideologically ‘uppity’. It’s ‘inverted totalitarianism’ - economic ideology (the global ‘free-market’) must ideologically rule in all its splendor, judging all things - shaping every aspect of life. Thought crimes now exist in many forms - not simply PC - which is merely the most unsubtle and cack-handed manifestation. But by no means is PC the most egregious form or indeed the most ideologically serious form. Of course any serious nationalism is about the interests of a specific and particular group of people, as indeed is all politics. Schmitt is basically right about the underlying ‘ontology’ of politics with regard to this issue (I could explain why I think so but the effort would be a wasted one to be sure). Even the ultra-individualism of extreme liberal ideology differentially serves the interests of differently placed groups (economically, politically) within a society. Liberalism is a ‘class’ project. A ruling-class project. It serves the collective interests of Mr. & Mrs. Plutocrat far more than Mr. & Mrs. Average (however solidly ‘independent’ they imagine themselves to be from the societal ‘whole’). And people wonder why it has such a ‘grip’. Or come up with pathetic “it’s all the evil J-lizards” and other such non-answers to the question, why? Sorry that was kinda off-topic. But even if this proposal is defeated it’s not really going to change the demographic future of the USA - I think those folks are going to be staying the the ‘land of the free’ irrespective of any change in the law. And their children will all be legal, yes? 84
Posted by Jon on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:41 | # Lister “And people wonder why it has such a ‘grip’. Or come up with pathetic “it’s all the evil J-lizards” and other such non-answers to the question, why?” A sine qua non is not the same thing as a single cause. White people’s rather flat IQ bell curve among other things might render us vulnerable to subversion from a cohesive ethnic group with a higher mean IQ but you don’t seem with that ridiculing statement to be arguing against anything. Let’s say the Romans had left the Levant alone and Jews had been happy to stay there and live among themselves. How would the West look now? 85
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:21 | # Can [Knucklehead] Sean Hannity Learn That Amnesty Is Wrong? Maybe. By Brenda Walker on June 26, 2013 at 7:30am
During Ann Coulter’s visit to the Hannity zone on Monday, he seemed curious about why she has declared herself to be a single-issue person, namely pro-immigration enforcement and against the hideous amnesty. Read more>> http://www.vdare.com/posts/can-sean-hannity-learn-that-amnesty-is-wrong-maybe
86
Posted by Euro on Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:09 | #
All right Lister, care to identify a little more closely those ‘differently placed groups’, that ‘ruling-class’, and that ‘Mr. & Mrs. Plutocrat’ for us? Pay no attention to any J-lizards you might happen to encounter along your path as you search for an answer, old shoe.
87
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:45 | # @Euro In a word no - you work it for yourself dear boy. Start with George Price, Carl Schmitt, Machiavelli, and Aristotle as background reading. But it’s really not too difficult for non-fuckwits to look at the world (and human history as such) in a non-intellectual way and to pick up on the notion that all ‘mass societies’ have had ruling elites and that those ruling elites have always had an ideological narrative to justify the system (whatever it was/is) and their place within it (at the top naturally). The ideological shape of a society and culture tends to be awash with the ideas of the ruling class (or ruling strata - if the c word scares timid little Americans). So the whole bollocks of - “well our native ruling elites are really, really, really, super-nice folks that are just so innocent, you know really naive sorts that have been ‘duped’ by wicked and ever so clever ‘outsiders’ darn it” - just doesn’t pass the test of FUCKING REALITY in this epoch or any other. But I guess you dear Euro are in the monocausal ‘camp’? I’m utterly bored with internet yahoos and assorted half-wits. The average MR dingbat (mostly Americans it seems) apparently knows the square root of fuck all about just about anything. Serious and rigorous conversations do not tend to be done thing here, yes? However, please ignore me and do carry on with whatever it this ‘is’. The ‘Space Jews’ will be shaking in their little old space boots I’m sure. Yes Sir, the next comment by Euro will ‘seal the deal’ meta-politically. I’m axiomatically certain that will be the case. In the same way I’m certain Christianity is true - just like Mr. Haller declared it to be so on these very cyber pages not so long ago. Why that’s the case closed on that issue obviously - and Mr. Haller is a fine ‘Ivy League’ intellect so who could possibly need anything more than such a pithy summation of the topic? It’s true - end of. Done. Evidentialism is so old hat and passé. Evidence is not required. No not in the slightest. And everyone with a semi-functional intellect will carry on as before - as if nothing whatsoever has occurred. 88
Posted by Euro on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:25 | # @ Lister
Our native elites take the same contemptuous views on the J-Lizard question as you do. Care to hazard an opinion as to why?
You guess wrong. Look, I appreciate your efforts here. I really do—I’m probably the only one who does. I invite you to continue them. But it seems to me that there are more than one ‘monocausal’ camps (oh, the irony!) regarding the causes of the current crisis. Entirely leaving out the JLs is hardly any more useful than focusing exclusively on them. You feelin’ me, Graham? 89
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:00 | # Though you are not the only one who appreciates Graham’s efforts here Euro, I basically agree with your statement number 88. 90
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:41 | # It’s all well and good to discuss deep philosophy, but, as I have been stressing here at MR for years now, in the meantime, while the philosophers are doing their navel-gazing, the aliens continue their colonization project. The philosophical problem shades into the military one even as we debate. Maybe we can all agree on the ‘nationalist minimum’ of ending the immigration invasions - and then actually end them - before over-worrying about our philosophical premises? I would have thought such brute ‘materialist’ concerns would have found much favor among divinity-denying Darwinian nationalists. 91
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:58 | # I certainly can agree that we might be concerned foremost with stopping (and reversing) immigration, the problem is that the question of our audience, viz. who we are, in that concern does not have much consensus, empathy or volume. That is why meta-political themes in establishment of identity are necessary at the same time. 92
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:45 | # While the amnesty train isn’t gaining speed, it certainly has enough driving force to reach its hellish destination. The only entity that could derail this atrocity resides in the House. We shall soon see if there is real opposition in the House, or if that opposition is, with few exceptions, amounts to window dressing: i.e., it’s meant to placate the anti-immigration base.
93
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:53 | # Amazing: only one third of US Senators (32) can be called patriots (and one of those stalwarts is black - Tim Scott (R-SC)). The twelve GOP traitors: Alexander (R-TN) Utahans should have teabagged Hatch (I always hated Hatch; he almost lost last year in the GOP primary) and Heller last year. Ayotte and Kirk were supposed to be “conservatives”. Note that of six non-white-male GOP Senators, four voted FOR amnesty. Another argument against “diversity” of any kind. Note also how few had the “excuse” of a large Latino state population: Flake Chiesa is just a placeholder, thanks to RINO Chris Christie, who could have appointed a hardline conservative NJ Senator all the way until Nov 2014, but instead gave us a 5 month RINO. But what is the excuse for the remaining 8 traitors? And how could not a single Democrat be pro-American? Bottom line: every American patriot had better devote a large chunk of time to calling as many GOP House members as possible in the next week. There are over two hundred, and I intend to call them all. I’ll be posting here if NumbersUSA provides any info re which are the most wavering and thus most useful to contact. The best tactic is to locate a city within the target’s Congressional district where you can say you live (use caller-ID block so the staffer can’t see where you’re calling from). Say that you are a wealthy GOP activist and REGULAR PARTY DONOR who henceforth will only give money to anti-amnesty Congressmen, and, moreover (and EMPHASIZE this), that you will be giving $1000 to ANY Tea Party GOP primary opponent if your GOP Congressman does not vote against ANY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP for the 30 MILLION illegals occupying America. Mention that you might give a few thousand more spread around other districts. This will be time-consuming, as there are over 200 GOP Congressmen (plus some might want to call their Democrat Congressmen, too). I assume MR readers know the arguments against immigration. If not, visit vdare.com, or numbersusa.com. This is it, people. The final destruction of America, or delaying that inevitability for another generation as we meanwhile marshall our forces, and raise our people’s consciousness, towards our final goal of a New White Homeland. 94
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:36 | # The response from the Democrats is that Obama is Mr. “Boots on the Ground for Border Security” and I suspect the same goes for all the Republicans who voted ‘Yea’:
95
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:44 | # Corrections @93: A friend sent me this info, and mentioned “12 traitors”. Counting the above, there were actually 14 GOP Senators who voted to destroy their party and country. Also, this sentence is obviously awkward:
Heller is the jerk from NV (along with the truly horrific Harry Reid). One really has to ask what is wrong with Orrin Hatch. He just got reelected to a 6 year Senate term from one of the whitest states, and he’s nearly 80. WTF???!! He might well die before completing his term. Moreover, he is the second longest current serving Senator. Can’t he even be a patriot for his swan song? That a man like Hatch couldn’t defend America really is illustrative of what is wrong with our race. Let’s face it. It would be unscientific to say many members of our our race have a “suicide gene”, but it is undeniably the case that we have some kind of collective biological defect preventing our acting in a (race-level) rational way. Saying that white ‘suicidism’ is a function of liberalism puts the cart before the horse. Why has race-liberalism taken such strong effect only among whites? Some call liberalism the defining ideology of modernity. But why has liberalism - real liberalism, not merely liberal voting behavior masking (nonwhite) nationalist attachments and interests - only taken root among whites, even within Western countries with substantial nonwhite populations? Why don’t American blacks agonize over racial injustices experienced by whites (or other racial groups)? Liberal ideology is a collective biological defect to which only whites en masse seem susceptible. I continue not to think that we can ever eradicate liberalism through superior philosophical argumentation, a perfectly plausible hypothesis that is not widely understood, at least at MR. We can only defeat this racially suicidal ideology through superior physical force. We must secure white majority territory (itself undoubtedly through force), and then continue to impose our racial ideology on all within the Race State, forcing those who wish to intermarry to leave the country, writing a new racial Constitution mandating eternal national-territorial apartheid, and making such permanent social and cultural changes as necessary to ensure collective survival through time. The white race will not survive without possessing racial sovereignty, and the state which arises from that acquisition will most definitely not be libertarian. We might as well accept now that we are going to have to force future generations to be white. There will be no liberty that conflicts with the “Prime Directive” (race survival).
96
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:29 | # (left on another blog; written in ‘common man’ fashion) Let me add: we middle class white Americans need a political lobbying organization dedicated to defending OUR people and OUR interests. Life will only get worse as time goes by and America goes down. Third World people make Third World countries. Blacks have the NAACP, Latinos their MALDEF and other organizations. Who do we have fighting for us? Race-realistic white Americans need to begin organizing ourselves into both political groups and ultimately self-protective organizations. We must have lobbyists fighting at the political level, and militias to protect each other “on the ground”. There is strength and power in numbers and unity. I estimate that there are over 100 million non-liberal/brainwashed white Americans (adults plus their children); that is, whites who want to live and want their children to live as free white persons in a country of dignity and prosperity. Right now whites are totally atomized, with only the anonymous internet available to us. We must meet in the real world, form political and defense alliances, and prepare (ourselves, and our children) for future domestic combat. Meanwhile, FIGHT THE AMNESTY! Call Republicans in the House and demand they say NO to Amnesty! Tell them they’ll be thrown out by primary challengers in 2014 if they betray us. Whites are being turned into Nazi-era Jews, a powerless and persecuted minority group, in OUR OWN COUNTRY! We must delay this minoritization as long as possible, while building up white consciousness and defense preparations. 97
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:30 | # Well, it looks to me like the House Republicans have already caved - or are about to. (Anyone surprised?) It seems the only thing left to work on is the bill’s language. They need to craft it in such a way so as to make it appear they in fact didn’t cave to the Dems. They want to claim victory in the face of defeat. Watch and see. They’ll deviously boost: LOOK! WE GOT BORDER SECURITY! Of course, and unfortunately, this will no doubt work to satisfy the low information voters(i.e., most Americanos). Actually these traitorous pieces of sh-t GOP pols don’t really care what the low information voters think; all they care about is pleasing the MSM and doing the bidding of their major campaign donors.
98
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:26 | # Wrong. The House leadership is trying to sell out, but there is tremendous House GOP opposition, because the grassroots GOP input is running almost wholly against (thanks to people like ME, who actually don’t just complain but get off our asses and make the calls, attend the town halls, etc). Now is the time for patriots to be phoning Congress like crazy, and letting them know where we stand. 99
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:46 | # Well, my friend, I for one have done more than my share of faxing, emailing and calling congressmen. I do the best I can and what I can. That said I agree with you it’s the House GOP leadership that’s the problem—not troopers like Congressman Steve King. But I wouldn’t describe the opposition as “tremendous”. I think it’s substantial (and behind the scenes, the Jews are busy working feverously at chipping away at those in the substantial column) but not anything like “tremendous”. At any rate, time will tell. There are those much more savvy than I who surmise that the Dems want the comprehensive immigration reform bill to fail this time around. They want that so they can use it as a campaign issue in the 2014 election cycle. The Dems—along with their willing accomplices in the media—think they can gain more seats in the House if the Republicans actually succeed in blocking amnesty this time around. The real scary thing is the Dems are probably right. 100
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 03:37 | # I don’t agree with that, though only time will tell. I think that if the House GOP caves on immigration, there will be a lot more internecine bloodletting, as well as general GOP grassroots demoralization, and that THAT will kill the House GOP in 2014. As I have aged, I have learned one thing about politics: most people of all races are losers. They do not behave rationally (esp true for whites). One aspect of that irrationality is that people prefer winners to losers. (I prefer ideological allies, but I am in the minority.) If GOP loses on immigration, the grassroots, which is hugely against amnesty, as all mentions of this by senior GOP leaders attest, could easily just say “F—- it!”, and stay home (thereby punishing even good Republicans), however irrational this may be (why make a bad situation worse? But, again, people are not rational). No, the House GOP is not all that patriotic, or, unlike the Democrats, even very politically astute, but it knows where its constituents stand, and, with a few total sellouts, like the rancid Paul Ryan (whom I hated from Day 1, and to whose Tea Party primary challenger, should one arise, I will be giving $1000; ditto Marco Rubio), will mostly do what it perceives its constituents want. That’s why it is so important to ratchet the pressure on all House GOP members. I am calling EVERY member of the House GOP, and I urge all other patriots to do likewise. 101
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:51 | # I think both the demographics and the ideological shift towards the left has been so dramatic that at this point, the conservative platform of the Republican Party amounts to no more than empty rhetoric—it now lacks the necessary force required to effect change. That explains why the Goopers are in the process of OPENLY adopting a more socially liberal and multicultural approach. That change is so evident that I have a hard time believing EVERYONE can’t see it. Moreover, over the last 50 years, both the Republicans and the Democrats have seamlessly worked together to advance the “progressive” agenda. If you block the din of all the “conservative” rhetoric and examine the records of all the Republican presidents since Eisenhower, and you will find just how “progressive” they were ... and yes I’m including St. Ronald of the 1986 amnesty fame. As an aside, one of my fav bloggers, Dr. Sanity, called it quits and bid her farewell the day after Obama won his second election. She obviously realized we have gone well past the tipping point and it is now an exercise in futility to try to salvage a system that is broken beyond repair. Of course I’m not nearly as wise as the good Doctor. Quite the contrary, Thorn keeps doing the same thing over and over and expects different results. HEH! 102
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:49 | # Thorn@101 I am in substantial disagreement with this comment. 1) Yes, demographics have radically shifted to the Left, taking the country with it a short way (so that Obama could get a whole 51% of the vote, with 5 MILLION fewer whites casting ballots than in 2008 - which is why Romney lost; as Sailer showed, if Mitt had gotten 3% more whites, he would be Prez). 2) I don’t see a huge ideological shift to the Left - not on the part of the general population. You’re not buying into MSM propaganda, are you? Ever look at comments following Yahoo ideological news articles (ie, ones with a political/cultural slant, such as immigration, Trayvon/Zimmerman, etc)? I do regularly. There is an unbelievably Hard Right majoritarian edge to them. I’ve posted hard-ass racialist comments that have received HUNDREDS of “thumbs up” vs a few dozen “thumbs down”. Look at the Most Popular comments following anything to do with amnesty. Sometimes the anti-amnesty ones are in the THOUSANDS vs DOZENS thumbs up/down! Is this the Vox Populi, or are Yahoo commenters way more rightwing than the general population? 3) Where Culture War conservatives are losing is on religious conservative issues. As a defender of Christian civilization, this disturbs me. I think a more secular USA will be an even crappier country, though personally I couldn’t care less about fag “marriage”, and while my theological views commit me to a pro-life stance, I think abortion is actually GOOD for America (for obvious racialist and eugenic reasons). So if the country moves Left on these social issues (and it has on marriage, though in part because conservatives are not aggressively fighting this; but it has not on abortion, where the Left can only ‘decline’, given Roe‘s abortionist supremacism), it’s not a huge problem for me. 4) OTOH, there are other social issues where we have temporarily won, like 3 Strikes, “stop and frisk”, and tougher criminal sentencing generally (though as with Lefties on abortion, we could lose some ground here eventually), or are winning, as with gun rights. Also, there has been a huge ratcheting upwards of anger at illegal aliens, esp among heretofore silent (on immigration) conservatives. If amnesty fails, I think this newly awakened concern could translate into real future progress, and on a range of conservative issues. 5) The GOP leaders are trying to be more multiculti, but they are generating party backlash (eg, amnesty); they most certainly have NOT dropped the religious social agenda (what evidence do you have for this?). 6) The last truly conservative Prez was Coolidge. I know this. Reagan was a liberal in essence; Buckley became so. But liberalism was always advanced against the wishes of the plain white people. It succeeded because liberals effectively played coalition politics (eg, bringing together white hardhat unions with civil servants and black ghettoes and with Jews, queers + feminists - none of whom had much in common at ground-level), while conservatives, being the National Interest Party, were cowards, at least on race/immigration, which I had recognized by the early 80s was the main electoral driver of liberalism. If Reagan had terminated nonwhite immigration, as I was loudly arguing for by 1980, he would have been as influential as FDR, and the GOP would be the hegemonic party today. 7) Lastly, I have been saying since before the Internet that there was no possibility of Taking Back America, though up until the early 90s I did think we could restore white conservative political and cultural domination, at least up to a moderate point. We could have maintained the Eighties forever. But we blew it - in our adult lifetimes - on immigration. But this is only where things get really interesting. Now we must fight for our rights like every other minority. See below. 103
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:51 | # White preservationist goals: 1) FREE Europe. Europe must be returned to whites as their/our exclusive racial/national property. All non-Europeans (including Jews, Roma and mixed-race natives - those with mixed European / non-European ancestry) must be re-or-expatriated. Once Europe has been racially cleansed, the European peoples themselves can then decide on what type of societies and governments they shall have. I expect there will be tremendous religious, cultural and ideological diversity. There just won’t be any genetic diversity, beyond that contained within the European family. Of course, there will still have to be considerations as to how far to the East “Europe” should be thought to extend, and especially how far to the South. Are Albanians and Bosnian Muslims “Europeans”? I think not. What about Christian Armenians? I had an Armeina-American girlfriend once. She looked and talked as white American as anyone else. All those different non-Russian or non-West European ethnic groups long resident within Russia proper? Native Russian Muslims? Native Mongoloid inhabitants of the Russian Far East? These are tricky problems, as the European Racial State or states will have geostrategic use for Russian resources, and those should not be traded away easily simply in the name of the most rigorous racial purity. Or should “Europe” simply extend only as far as Russia, with the latter kept firmly out (there are arguments for this scenario, too, given the morally decrepit and endemically corrupt state of Russia today)? I have no ready answers. 2) Outside of Europe: The goal for WPs outside of our ancient fatherlands must be to support and maintain white communities and the white way of life to as great an extent as possible. If Jews could preserve their peoplehood under minoritarian Diasporic conditions, often hostile ones, so can we. If whites can be made racially tougher, there is no reason we cannot preserve a white American (or Australian) presence, living in a tolerable degree of civilization, for centuries. The white elites sprinkled throughout Latin America have largely managed to do so (whether their status will continue indefinitely is unclear, however). This was not what my American Founding Fathers intended, but it is not inconceivable that the pure-blooded white American could endure for a long time even under majority nonwhite conditions. We must prepare for this. “New World” WPs seek, at a minimum: - elimination of nonwhite immigration, legal as well as illegal, along with nonwhite alien deportation - elimination of anti-white discrimination - to awaken whites to our racial value (and values), as well as to our ongoing dispossession - white personal empowerment, through concealed carry (firearms) and stand your ground laws - harsh punishments for violent criminals - reductions in interracial transfers of wealth - elimination of multiculti brainwashing of white students. Note, the above is a MINIMAL agenda. Bottom line: Europe must be returned to our race. Outside of Europe, we fight for white EGI as best we can, possibly up to and including racial secession and sovereignty (White Republic or White Zion options). 104
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:08 | # Leon, I look at the rapid implementation of the LGBT agenda as but one indicator of just how leftward our country has drifted. Where is all the bad ass Republican opposition to the “gay” agenda? No where to be found as far as I can see. The best the Goopers can muster is feckless opposition. Roe v Wade happened in 1973. Why hasn’t it been overturned? Forty years and three Republican presidential administrations later and abortion on demand is still the law of the land. More evidence of feckless Gooper opposition. Yes, IF Romney could’ve gotten only 3%of the white vote he’ be President Romney. But getting that 3% is easier said than done. Had Willard given ANY indication he was pro-white, the MSM would have relentlessly pounced on him with all their might (and the MSM might is overwhelming). Look how fast the MSM disposed of Donald Trump. Remember that? Trump had the gull to question the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate thus he was set upon with a constant chorus emanating from the MSM accusing him of being a racist. As a result, he promptly abandoned his presidential aspirations. The fact is, Romney did the best he possibly could given the hostile anti-white environment he had to operate under. Initially, Willard had it right on immigration. He was for the enforcement of existing immigration laws, against granting amnesty, and regarded self deportation as part of the solution to ridding the US of its illegal aliens. The problem was not with Romney, the problem is with white people. Again, white people are the problem. Most white people have been infected with “anti-racism” and modern-liberalism a.k.a. “The Sickness”. 105
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:31 | # Thorn, Yes and No. Yes, whites are the problem. We are somehow racially defective when it comes to race. Lister can dismiss this, explaining that no “political genes” have been found (doubtless true, but irrelevant), and that the real problem is ontological liberalism, but that in turn begs the question of why only whites en masse get infected by this liberalism? Race liberalism is only taken seriously by whites. Why? I think there must be a genetic explanation, even if we don’t yet have it. However, nothing is either/or. Blacks are far more criminal as a class than whites. But plenty of blacks are peaceable, and many whites are criminals. Likewise, whites are far more liberal than other races. But that in no way means that all whites are race liberals (esp all on-Jewish whites). I would say a majority of whites are “colorblind” race liberals (DEFINITELY NOT WNs, or even WPs), but that is the extent of their race liberalism. They are not PC, and not willing to surrender their nation and way of life to a bunch of aliens (legal or not). Look at the white reaction to Zimmerman. Relentless MSM incitement did not cause most whites to feel that the verdict was unjust. White majorities do not understand race, and are not willing to be racist. But they also are not willing to give away the country to those who don’t play by what we consider to be “fair rules”. The point is that they never have a real chance to express themselves, except as Third Party candidates, for whom too many people won’t ‘throw away’ their votes (several of my hardcore friends did not vote for Buchanan in ‘00, some because he chose a negress running mate, but others because they thought Bush would be better for business than Gore - even though they preferred the Buchanan line on race and immigration, they knew he would not win, and did not want Gore). We cannot know this, but I think you are absolutely incorrect re Romney, as well as re the power of the MSM, which you ludicrously overrate (perhaps giving away your age in doing so). The MSM was relentlessly in favor of what even a friend of mine, hugely into gun rights and the NRA, thought was a reasonable compromise on guns (background checks - not that he supported them, but he was afraid of worse). It failed in Congress - but it also failed in opinion polls (of whites, not of the overall population). If Romney had run as an anti-immigrationist he would have done substantially better overall (with all that improvement being among working class whites), and he would have triumphed. He lost because he failed to connect with the white working class. Period. But he could have with a different message (or a more populist, working class candidate could have even with the same message; Romney just couldn’t relate to average whites, let alone to nonwhites). Re LGBT, I think you missed my point. On some issues whites are drifting left; but on others they have drifted right. See above. 106
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:13 | # Leon, You make good points as usual. Here’s where I beleive Romney went wrong: His mistake was overestimating the intelligence of the American electorate. His strategy was to focus in on the debt and deficit spending. He thought the vast majority of Americanos understood that the biggest threat to our way of life is directly correlated to the out of control fiscal and monetary policies. He doubled down on that strategy by choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate. Of course Ryan is known for his expertise in budgetary matters, i.e. reducing then eliminating deficit spending viz The Ryan Plan. It was evident Romney’s campaign strategy was successful, that was until the second debate when the fat ass libtard moderator, Candy Crowley, inserted herself in the debate and sucker punched Willard WRT the Benghazi terrorist attack. (Remember that?) That absolutely stunned Willard to the point of which he never fully recovered. From that point on Willard went into his Mitten’s mode and as a result he began to slide in the polls. IOWs he lost his focus and began to flounder. The MSM moved in and exploited the weakness. (Oh, and fat ass Chris Chisty’s slobering love affair with Obama just prior to the election factored big in Barry’s reelection.) The rest is history. The gun issue will go the same way the gay agenda has. The gay agenda is successful in large part due to 25 years of indoctrination of kids in the public school system—coupled and reinforced by the MSM and the entertainment industry. The result? Polls now reflect that one of the most important issues for the 18 to 30 years old age group is the advancement of the “gay rights” adgenda. WTF?!? Of course that same template is being used to change the culture from a majority pro Second Amendment culture to an anti Second Amendment culture. The Left needs one generation, two at the most. Moreover, the Left is patient. “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” ― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin 107
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:07 | # Thorn, Historians will write books examining why Romney lost. There is no obvious answer - “obvious” to all well-meaning persons (ie, those not pushing some agenda, ideological or intellectual). I believe he could have won had he followed my advice and pursued a more Right-populist agenda. Romney was OK on immigration, but he did not emphasize it, nor did he explain it in the obvious way, as the main driver of both continued unemployment (debatable in fact, but a great line) and of stagnant working class wage rates (absolutely true), a real problem Republican fools don’t want to recognize, and which goes back to the 70s. Romney lost because he was “too white”. I mean culturally, not racially (or, better, “racially + culturally”). He was like a 1950s white guy with a pitch-perfect white family, something which I like and was the main reason I would have voted for him had I voted in a swing state, like Michigan (as a Californian, I knew he would lose my state, and felt he wasn’t good enough on his own terms for me to vote for him); I voted for the Independent Party guy). This greatly pains me, as I like what Romney represented, culturally as well as “mythically” (because we know he was in fact a douchebag moderate/opportunist, a typical corporate sleazeball; I know the type well, and do not consider it truly patriotic, let alone rightwing). He represented 1950s America, the last good decade, the last white decade: hardworking, clean cut corporate guy, stay at home wife, respectful kids, very un-diverse, un-Obama. That is the Old America, and it can no longer win a national electoral majority. That is sad. I have for decades known this day would come. And now it’s here. Putting aside the weirdo Mormonism, the Romneys were like my family. That’s why my mom liked him; “he’s our kind of person”, she said at one point (my dad had his number, though - called him “slick”, didn’t like him). That his cultural type no longer commands the respect of the American electorate (and barely that of the Majority America) is a huge marker of cultural decline. However, don’t think all who didn’t like Romney were either minorities or gay-loving, “alternative” libtards. If Romney had been a less cookie-cutter corporate dude, if he had had an up-by-his-bootstraps resum(ay), if he were ex-military, or the founder of a recognizable business (instead of making his fortune in properly suspicious-sounding “private equity”, which actually involves a lot of anti-true-free-enterprise leveraging and tax-code manipulation bullshit [see the great David Stockman’s recent book trashing Romney’s type of capitalism, The Great Deformation, written from a hardcore Austro-libertarian perspective]), I think he would have done much better among working-class whites (ie, those without college degrees, and generally working not with “information”), and could have won. For how much longer this will be the case if we do not end the immigration invasion, let alone if we amnesty 30 MILLION Mexicans, is another matter. The future of our people is not good, and has not been at any point in my now middle-aged life. But the situation is not hopeless, and should not be portrayed as such. As to the LGBT revolution, I have long felt this was a natural working out of the Sexual Revolution (not that I care much or think much about sexual politics). Libtards always want to communize everything, with the single great exception of sexuality (though one could argue that promoting sexual deviance further strengthens today’s leftist state hegemony by breaking down the traditional family and its social and economic functions; I agree with this, but there is scope for disagreement: the late Jewish/British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm once opined early in the Sixties Sexual Rev that sexual ‘liberation’ could be an anti-revolutionary force, serving to dissipate potentially revolutionary energies in idle sexual pursuits). On sex, they are the most radical individualists, refusing to recognize any social dimension to these so-called “private, consensual acts”. Given the widespread public acceptance of these false liberal ideas, what grounds are there really to reject homosexuality, SSM, and similar garbage? At least wrt women in combat there is a functionalist argument (not that military effectiveness actually matters to our Leninist social engineers), though there are other, still more fundamental objections, too. Similarly, one can reject abortion on fetal-personhood grounds (ie, “that embryo is a CHILD, entitled to a right-to-life”). But if a society embraces sexual individualism, how can you deny marriage to queers? Isn’t that simply “discrimination” based on mere “prejudice”? The end was present in the beginning (in much else, too). 108
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:48 | # Leon, et al, in case you missed this. This doesn’t look promising at all. It looks like the lobbyists’ power and influence has turned 40 to 50 House Republicans into quislings. If true, the only thing keeping amnesty from passing in the House is hinged on Boehner staying true (gasp!) to his word; that is, refusing to bring an immigration bill to the House floor unless it is supported by a majority of his conference.
109
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 07:59 | # We will win if we fight, lose if we don’t. This is a rare case where ordinary folks like us can have a hugely disproportional effect on the political process. Ten thousand determined patriots, constantly hitting the phone lines and townhall meetings, could literally defeat this treason. So keep at it! Gutierrez is a leftist Democrat who of course wants amnesty, and is trying to spin his way to get there. It also comes down to threatening GOP cowards with primary election challenges if they dare betray our party (and country). They must be told they will suffer for their treason. Post a comment:
Next entry: Profiles - First up, Earl Warren: “Activism” Over “Restraint”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
] That way none of those pesky Christians can derail their grand plan to save the White race. HEH!
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:26 | #
I called my senators’ offices yesterday and registered my opposition to the nation destroying amnesty madness, but unfortunately my senators (Levin and Stabenow) are useless WRT the amnesty issue. So I’ll take your advice and start calling out of state senators—that’s the least I/we can do. And much thanks, Leon, for sorting out those of them that are worth calling.
BTW, or FWIW, # 83. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. has already bent to the will of the Treason Lobby and is joining forces with the “Gang of Eight”