Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 May 2009 18:16 | #

A contest of kvetching between disillusioned, bitter, post-menopausal White women and the best “men” the Jews can muster; a battle of the Titans.  LOL!  Maybe there is something to Inevitablism.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 16 May 2009 19:07 | #

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=994021#post994021

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 16 May 2009 21:49 | #

The Jew’s perspective is amazing—he thinks the “banking system” has intrinsic value, when, as Warren says, from the perspective of an American it’s valuable only insofar as it serves the American middle class.  The Jew could hardly be making it clearer that he’s not an American.

This occurs around the 11:00 mark of the interview.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 17 May 2009 03:24 | #

I think the unspoken context (aside from Davidson’s stereotypical Jewish banker bias) was Warren’s most recent TARP oversight report.  I haven’t read it yet, but Davidson’s point sounds like: “Your report claimed that not enough TARP money was going to support the base of the pyramid but that’s not the urgent problem.  The urgent problem is the eye of the pyramid is in danger of ceasing to levitate serenely above it all.”

Oh, and he also was basically saying: “Since you were alone in predicting the financial collapse, why should anyone listen to you?”

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 17 May 2009 07:10 | #

Good interview.

For some 70 minutes Davidson could not get past the voice of his “israeli mother” in his head, telling him that “the (jewish) house is on fire” and the (jewish) banking system must be saved, no matter the cost to (White) middle class families.

Davidson laid one trap after another for Warren, trying to get her to say something, anything she could be scandalized for. And though she repeatedly professed her support for the (jewish) banking system, he didn’t even pretend to care about the decades-long squeeze on the (White) middle class. It clearly flustered him that anyone could have the temerity to suggest that the (jewish) bankers should not immediately get whatever they ask for (cash, time, secrecy, new rules, no rules, ...), never mind someone authorized to make reports and recommendations.

Davidson’s self-righteous single-minded conceit that the rotten (jewish) financial system must be saved at all costs is uncannily similar to what jewish plutocrat and media mogul Mort Zuckerman expressed in an interview I linked and commented on a few months ago: Moral Hazard. The American people came up only briefly and Zuckerman’s opinion of us amounted to: “they’ll do whatever we tell them needs to be done”.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 May 2009 10:56 | #

Davidson laid one trap after another for Warren, trying to get her to say something, anything she could be scandalized for.

Probably Warren herself buys into the anti-racist, individualist, universalist narrative by which Davidson would bludgeon her into submission if she violated its dogmas.  What would she have said to Davidson, no holds barred, in her patented morally outraged style, if she did not? 

“The financial system as it stands does not exist as an end unto itself, it exists to serve and secure the life of a flesh-and-blood people - my people.”

“The extant financial system, far from merely experiencing mismanagement that causes suffering for my people now - which suffering they must allegedly temporarily endure so as to save that vital institution - is significantly, if not primarily, strangling my people to death.  Leave the financial system aside, I would rather the world burn to ashes than see my people die.”

Until one has the stones to speak and act accordingly, criticism of what is ‘feminine’ really is slightly hypocritical.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sun, 17 May 2009 16:44 | #

“The financial system as it stands does not exist as an end unto itself, it exists to serve and secure the life of a flesh-and-blood people - my people.”

This is something Davidson might have said in defense of the system, had he the capacity for honesty.

In Warren’s righteous indignation at the assault on the middle class I sense an instinctive advocacy for our people stronger and more disciplined than we see these days from most anyone else in the public eye. Thus I sympathize and recognize common purpose. I don’t abide the jeering directed her way from our side. We can be sure hypersensitive jews are aware of even the muted, deracinated threat she poses and will do their best to discredit, silence, and destroy her.

It is a shocking indication of just how completely we’ve lost control to compare the language of Huey Long and the opposition to the “Jew Deal” of yesteryear to today’s muffled, frightened silence in the face of a much more overtly jewish deal. Back then you might be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. Today even deracinated semi-opposition to financial fraud (ala Warren) is considered borderline jew hatred specifically because the conflict with jewish interests is so obvious.

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 17 May 2009 17:41 | #

Mr. Bowery- if nothing else, the allusions, and word pictures in your intro to this interview are so wonderful, so full of double entendres, and slaps in the face to the modern judaized anti-culture, that I would be happy if you just spoke your mind, WITHOUT the NPR (National Propaganda Radio) ‘interview’ tacked on.

Such writing is sorely lacking today. As Scripture says, “Answer a fool according to his folly.” You’ve done such here.

The thing all liberals DETEST more than anything else, is that people make FUN of them- their persons, their ideology, and their blasted ‘seriousness’ about themselves- truly, the mark of a prideful snot.

Bravo.

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 17 May 2009 23:14 | #

@James Bowery

Thanks for the link.  I only listened to the interview from (I think) the point that Tan refers to above, where things get heated.  I actually thought Warren faired quite well and that Davison came off as very shallow.

Anyhow on a more personal note this line particularly interests me.

The really important point to understand here is that the key to controlling the white population in the US has been pumping white women up to the point that their weaknesses can be turned against their people.

And it does so personally because I have two daughters at their most fertile age who refuse to have children, marry etc.  I want grandchildren but I also want them to have a full life with as few regrets as possible.  I would like to be able to source some easily presented arguments to outline the consequences of their choices.  Any suggestions?

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 17 May 2009 23:21 | #

Captainchaos

I didn’t listen to the full interview and missed this. 

“The financial system as it stands does not exist as an end unto itself, it exists to serve and secure the life of a flesh-and-blood people - my people.”

“The extant financial system, far from merely experiencing mismanagement that causes suffering for my people now - which suffering they must allegedly temporarily endure so as to save that vital institution - is significantly, if not primarily, strangling my people to death.  Leave the financial system aside, I would rather the world burn to ashes than see my people die.”

I’ll have to tune in again tonight to hear Davison’s reaction.  This strikes me as something that would truly put him off guard.  Is there any certainty that he is a jew?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 May 2009 23:34 | #

Warren never said those things to Davidson, it was my suggestion of what she should have said.  Davidson spoke of his “Israeili mother,” he is most certainly a Jew.

Posted by Thunder on Mon, 18 May 2009 00:17 | #

Thanks CC,

I should have read your post more carefully.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 19 May 2009 00:49 | #

A former feminist useful idiot confided in me that one thing that helped open her eyes was Phyllis Schlafly, who in particular turned her on to George Gilder’s Men and Marriage, which is a revised and expanded edition of Sexual Suicide.

Schlafly is hated by the left for killing the Equal Rights Amendment: YouTube - Phyllis Schlafly and the Stop-ERA Campaign. Like Enoch, Schlafly was right. Unfortunately, we know this because what she warned us against has come or is coming to pass.

I can’t recommend either of Gilder’s books wholeheartedly however, because Gilder, even while capable of indicting the destructive, genocidal consequences of jewish-led feminism, is obtuse enough to misidentify it as suicide. It’s safe to say he never would have become a best-seller or even published another book if he had in any way frankly identified the jewish contribution to feminism. Beside that, he sees anti-semitism entirely as a form of jealousy, rather than say a resentment of genocidal anti-White crimes, of which feminism is but a single facet.