Posted by Stanley on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:25 | #

“No, he is talking about the Democrats.  He is saying that the party itself, its values and its policies for America are for “people of color” and “even women”.  He is saying that if you are a white male American you are totally outside of the ministrations and ambitions of his party.  He is saying that as a party of “color and women” the Democratic Party does not like white male America, does not serve white male America, indeed exists to undermine the proverbial hegemony of white male America.  He is saying that the Democratic Party is as fixed and as singular in its antipathy to white male America as it is traditionally towards the GOP.  He is saying, frankly, the GOP can have white male America.”

=====================================

THE HIERARCHY

Great essay. I have no doubt that Howard Dean meant what he said, even if his reasoning or strategic understanding was fuzzy. Regarding the hierarchy of the victims (or the “deeply deserving”) as expressed by Dean, it’s important to note that the real center of Dean’s and many of the Left Coast’s anti-white bigots is (A) “immigrants” even though they weren’t featured in this Dean quote. Out here in California, the rhetoric is first all about immigrants & their special needs, (B) then people of color arranged by skin tone (seriously), (C) then women, and on their heels (D) you will find gay people, more and more suspect because of their tendency to bring white back to blight in inner cities (gentrification).

EGALITARIANISM & UNIVERSALISM

Seeing people as members of a group or groups is perfectly compatible with the twin notions of egalitarianism and universalism, but both egalitarianism and universalism are smacked-down by Dean’s perceptions of hierarchical claims based on group membership(s).

Egalitarianism and universalism are, of course, reflections of each other. Any true egalitarian would necessarily have to believe in universalism. Both these concepts have been used extensively in the beat-down enjoyed by the diverse white American peoples for the past 35 years.

DUMP EGALITARIANISM & UNIVERSALISM

I think two of the values goals for the white liberation movement would be to detect and rebut arguments, claims, and criticism of us based on a deformed policy of egalitarianism or a dishonest sense of worldwide anything (universalism). This would mean simply to claim our rights whether phrased as the rights of contract, free association, and assembly, along with the right to be free from defamation and discrimination. We’re much too corrupted by the Bolsheviki “arguments” for fair play, equal shares, and so on. We need to leave alone arguments based on comparisons and contrasts with other demographics. Our cause of white liberation is a grand enough narrative to stand on its own two feet. Besides we need to present the thin edge of the wedge to the diverse white American, Canadian, Australian, and European peoples, not the absolutely most difficult concepts.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 04:22 | #

I just want to say about Howard Dean that he comes from a wealthy New York City WASP family who were Republicans I believe, he was a pretty reasonable governor of Vermont despite being a Democrat (not far-left at all, very middle-of-the-road, very fiscally responsible), is married to a Jewish woman and is raising their children as Jews I believe, presumably at his wife’s request (or perhaps her family’s?).  His lightning-like transition from being a reasonable governor to the hyper-radical extreme-left partisan during his campaign for the presidential nomination astounded me and many others whose experience with him had been as our governor.  It was like night and day, like two different men it was such a change.  It was not the same man.  He was unrecognizable.  To this day I don’t understand it.

Although he was a good governor and I liked him then, I of course loathe him now.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 04:38 | #

I’m pretty sure I once saw, in an interview when he was governor, where he said he disliked people with strong political opinions.  Odd thing to say for a politician, no?  At the time, I remember, that struck me as meaning he himself must hold no particular political opinions, and therefore perhaps resented it when others did, something like that.  Well, if he naturally lacks strong political opinions of his own, and just drifts waiting to be influenced by others (by his wife maybe?), maybe influence of others explains his sudden drastic shift on leaving Vermont to go national.

Anyway, none of that’s important:  he’s abysmal now of course, just abysmal. 

He was a good man once.  Something got into him and completely ruined him.

Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:37 | #

It is impossible for a Christian who raises his children as Jews to be a “good” man.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:17 | #

“The crackdown against the oligarchs resulted in agonized complaints about the demise of democracy in Russia, and we are sure to see more such complaints in the wake of the invasion of Georgia. The neocons much preferred a democracy in which the Jewish oligarchs completely controlled the media and could buy large blocs of the Duma — in other words, a democracy that much more resembles our own.” -Editorial, Occidental Observer

http://www.occidentalobserver.com/articles/Editorial-Georgia.html#Georgia

The neo-cons are pissed at ‘Czar’ Putin because he won’t bite the pillow like a good goy.  Stubborn whitey, bad whitey.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:23 | #

Try this one more time:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/articles/Editorial-Georgia.html#Georgia

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:31 | #

The Occidental Observer quote in CC’s comment just above is exactly correct.  (My computer won’t pull in the article itself just at the moment; shall have to try again later.)  The Jews of course are concsious of their ethnic control over various aspects of Euro societies and do not like it when someone like Putin comes along and thwarts that control.  He goes straight onto their enemies list — meaning he’s now a “hater” and what-not.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:33 | #

OK, got the article with the new link, thnx.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:59 | #

Very good editorial.  Here was one more gold nugget, among several:

And speaking of democracy, the fact that John McCain came to the defense of [Russian-Jewish crook] Khodorkovsky is yet another indication that he is completely tied into the neocon foreign policy establishment.  [Scroob note:  and his open-borders pro-race-replacement fanaticism indicates he is completely tied into the Jewish neocon domestic policy establishment.]  Just recently it became known that Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s foreign policy adviser, was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of Georgia.  Scheunemann was also President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, sponsored by Bill Kristol’s Project for a New American Century.  Kristol, like the other neocons, is eager for the US to stand up to Russia over Georgia:  “Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?”  Ah, the old argumentum ad Hitlerum.  There can be no greater condemnation of American democracy than that John McCain will be the candidate of one of the major parties, while the other party will nominate Barack Obama.

As was noted by Jürgen Graf, the U.S. is one of a number of countries in which the Jews control both the government and the opposition.  Obama is of course wholly a Jewish creation, and McInsane is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Jewish neocons.  Turns out Bush is too (which no one understood in the year 2000), which is why we got even wider-open borders than under Slick, and the War for Oil and U$ra€£.

Posted by Robert Reis on Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:06 | #

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html