Are White People Stupid or What?

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland
DBWave, thanks for the clarification sir. Like I said...I don't hate Jews. I just don't like the pawns on "Crapitol sHill" bowing down to AIPAC & mistaking Tel Aviv for the U.S. capitol. I don't care for Muslims (PLO, Hamas, etc.). My loyalty is to our Constitutional Republic & preserving our heritage. I'm anti-Zionist in that I detest Americans (politicians & otherwise) who think we need to serve the Israeli agenda (like that false-prophet John Hagee). I also don't hate other races, but feel the White race is the best. The only folks I hate are the cultural Marxists & their enabling ma$ters...the Global Elite!
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
dbwave said:
What is wrong with that? It is a Jewish Nation. They are trying to keep the nation strong. The more Jews the stronger the nation. Why would they want anyone trying to convert Jews? Why would they want to dilute their base? They are surrounded by hostile countries desperately wanting Israels demise. Israel has no other choice then to be strong. They become week and lose one war, it is over. Turn out the lights.


Once again, I wish America had similar policies. We are becoming a week nation. diluted with too much diversity and not enough core.


I undertand your view but I needed to retort.

Then we agree. We as a founding white European Christian nation have as much right to remain White European Christian as Israel does remain Jewish. Fine by me. That means a lot of Jewish people will have to move out of New York to another country and that is fine by me.

And it also means that we don't have to support Israel's right to remain Jewish as it is of no interest of ours. In fact, our interest in the holy land should concern the right of Christians - which Jewish Supremacy laws strictly prohibit in Israel. We should favor any country that supports White Christian rights just as Jews favor any country that favor Jews.

So if you really believe in a nation's right to maintain it's own unique identity, then you have no basis to ask us White Americans to support Israel. I'm glad we have come to an agreement.

Lastly, it's becoming increasingly hard to separate Jews from Zionism. It's becoming an almost impossible task to find any Jewish person that is not objective enough to occasionally disagree with Israel's actions - like the slaughter going on in Gaza. I'm still waiting for one of our Jewish posters to step-up and disagree with Israel and this fake "war on terror."Edited by: Kaptain Poop
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
Kaptain, I disagree with almost everything Israel's government does. I recognize it's right to exist, relative to other nations' right to exist, based on their developments and improvements.

Since I'm paleoconservative/libertarian politically, and most people identify me as white, it becomes an issue when other conservatives identify me as Jewish. Because so many people have classified Judaism as a race, sometimes I'm forced to identify as Jewish. But many people who identify as Jewish are fine people who've made many contributions to society.

Beware, identifying someone else as a member of a racial category is a form of Communism, but that's a topic for another day.
 

dbwave

Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
73
Kaptain Poop said:
dbwave said:
What is wrong with that? It is a Jewish Nation. They are trying to keep the nation strong. The more Jews the stronger the nation. Why would they want anyone trying to convert Jews? Why would they want to dilute their base? They are surrounded by hostile countries desperately wanting Israels demise. Israel has no other choice then to be strong. They become week and lose one war, it is over. Turn out the lights.



Once again, I wish America had similar policies. We are becoming a week nation. diluted with too much diversity and not enough core.



I undertand your view but I needed to retort.

Then we agree. We as a founding white European Christian nation have as much right to remain White European Christian as Israel does remain Jewish. Fine by me. That means a lot of Jewish people will have to move out of New York to another country and that is fine by me.

And it also means that we don't have to support Israel's right to remain Jewish as it is of no interest of ours. In fact, our interest in the holy land should concern the right of Christians - which Jewish Supremacy laws strictly prohibit in Israel. We should favor any country that supports White Christian rights just as Jews favor any country that favor Jews.

So if you really believe in a nation's right to maintain it's own unique identity, then you have no basis to ask us White Americans to support Israel. I'm glad we have come to an agreement.

Lastly, it's becoming increasingly hard to separate Jews from Zionism. It's becoming an almost impossible task to find any Jewish person that is not objective enough to occasionally disagree with Israel's actions - like the slaughter going on in Gaza. I'm still waiting for one of our Jewish posters to step-up and disagree with Israel and this fake "war on terror."


A couple of different issues to discuss. I am Jewish but strongly believe that America is Christian based country founded by Europeans. That is the base of this country. My heritage came after. I am a proud American and believe American, although diverse, shoud stay strong to her base. Our base right now is becoming too diluted, by the Liberal left, and therefore we are electing idiots like Obama into office. Hopefully not to the demise of our nation.


America and Israel are seperate conversations. Whether its my Jewish heritage or common sense (hannity, savage, o'reilly), I strongly support Israel. My thoughts on Israelare seperate from my thoughts on America. America first. I believe and would argue that Israel has been a loyal ally and supports America's vision. I also concede that Israel strongly relies on America for survial. I think America gives Israel more aid then any other country but Egypt is second. Balance of power.


I strongly support Israel defensive into Gaza. Israel does not have the comfort to lose a war. If it does it is over. They fight back, they fight hard and they make sure their enemies will think twice about ever attacking again. As a white Jew, I would disagree with the Gaza situation if I thought Israel was wrong. But I don't .


It saddens me that you blame Jews for the down turn in America when the blame should be a step above. The blame my friend, should be towards the Liberal left (Europeans, Jews, blacks, women, what ever a liberal should be).


DBWAVE
 

dbwave

Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
73
Freedom said:
Kaptain, I disagree with almost everything Israel's government does. I recognize it's right to exist, relative to other nations' right to exist, based on their developments and improvements.

Since I'm paleoconservative/libertarian politically, and most people identify me as white, it becomes an issue when other conservatives identify me as Jewish. Because so many people have classified Judaism as a race, sometimes I'm forced to identify as Jewish. But many people who identify as Jewish are fine people who've made many contributions to society.

Beware, identifying someone else as a member of a racial category is a form of Communism, but that's a topic for another day.





While a disagree on your stance on Israel, I agree with your thoughts on your Jewish Identity. To the chagrin of many on this site Jews are white. I look at my skin and I see white. When I apply for a job, they don't have a box for "Jew", I have to mark white/caucasian.


I am seeing a common mindset that is disturbing......blaming Jews for America's woes. No doubt there are liberal Jews, but there are liberals in every walk of race. Liberals is what is killing america......not the Jew.


Tongue and cheek.....if you are that fired up, rent Borat, have a laugh at a Jew making fun of Jews.


Cheers,


DBWAVE
 

dbwave

Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
73
DixieDestroyer said:
DBWave, thanks for the clarification sir. Like I said...I don't hate Jews. I just don't like the pawns on "Crapitol sHill" bowing down to AIPAC & mistaking Tel Aviv for the U.S. capitol. I don't care for Muslims (PLO, Hamas, etc.). My loyalty is to our Constitutional Republic & preserving our heritage. I'm anti-Zionist in that I detest Americans (politicians & otherwise) who think we need to serve the Israeli agenda (like that false-prophet John Hagee). I also don't hate other races, but feel the White race is the best. The only folks I hate are the cultural Marxists & their enabling ma$ters...the Global Elite!


Dixie, it is starting to sound like you and I are finally getting to common ground. America first.........period. We should not serve anybody's agenda except our own. Now that does not mean we should "hang up the phone" and ignore our allies. You and I have clashed on past issues.....unless I misinterpreted your post, I am glad we are finally twopeas in a pod!


Your favorite white Jew.


DBWAVEEdited by: dbwave
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
Freedom said:
Kaptain, I disagree with almost everything Israel's government does. I recognize it's right to exist, relative to other nations' right to exist, based on their developments and improvements.

Is that code for I agree with Israel right to exist but not Palestine/Gaza because they are not developed enough? How conveneint that they can't "develope" because of Israel's actions.

How do feel about Israel continuing to make illegal settlements?



Edited by: Kaptain Poop
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
"I think America gives Israel more aid then any other country but Egypt is second. Balance of power"

We give the unpopular "pro-western" Egyptian government money to stay pro-Israel. In a true "balance of power" we give the money and aid to Palestinians - including military aid.

How do you feel about the illegal Israeli settlements? Should Israel's neighbors just allow illegal settlements without so much as throwing a rock?

How would you feel about your "America First" stance if America elected a president that immediately cut-off all aid (financial and military) to Israel? Then that president installed by some magical executive order a whites-only (no jews either) immigration policy? And as a result of that policy, Israel started a series of covert terrorist attacks on America which would then lead us into a war with Israel. Which side would you fight for?

I keep hearing about what a wonderful allie Israel is but I never hear of what they actually do for America. Could you elaborate?
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
1,248
Location
Illinois
I hope they sue the hell of the guys reponsible for the murder of Adrienne Shelley.
Any illegal imigrant that kills- even in self defense- should get the death penality.
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
No KP, it isn't code for anything. I don't care about Israel, but I consider that land theirs because they built it up. It's the same logic that other posters here use for justifying why America shouldn't give land back to the Indians. The Palestinians want the built up land, not the desert wasteland. If they were asking for reparations, they'd be much more persuasive.

Besides, most of the west didn't recognize "the Palestinians" as owners of Palestine. The British Empire was recognized as the land's rightful owner, in any meaningful context.

Not only would I be comfortable of cutting off all aid to Israel, but I'd be supportive of it as well. That's why I'm confused as to your referencing Israeli settlements as "illegal." Under whose legal codes? You don't say "immoral," you say "illegal." It's as if you feel the US, or a UN group, should police the world. You sound like a neo-Con right there.

As for immigration, I would feel that a "whites only" immigration policy would lead to Communism and Socialism. Notice how all the Immigration Restriction League, Nordic supremacist, and pro-eugenic members turned out to be pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-Globalist. Never forget that it was the Nordic lobby that gave us the UN and turned into both the Neo-Cons and the Liberals!

I'd get rid of affirmative action and welfare and patrol the border to solve our immigration problem. If our workforce can't compete with workers from third world countries, WHAT CHANCE DO WE HAVE OF STAYING A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!
smiley7.gif


So KP, stop your crying and show your true colors. Do you care about true European heritage because it promotes character and hard work? Or do you just care about character and hard work to promote a psuedo-European heritage?
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,535
Location
Pennsylvania
Freedom said:
As for immigration, I would feel that a "whites only" immigration policy would lead to Communism and Socialism. Notice how all the Immigration Restriction League, Nordic supremacist, and pro-eugenic members turned out to be pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-Globalist. Never forget that it was the Nordic lobby that gave us the UN and turned into both the Neo-Cons and the Liberals!


That's a silly statement at best. That's like saying that because someone like Frank Colin (partly Jewish) wound up as head of a Nazi group in the 1970s, the Nazis were pro-Jewish. The early eugenicists were what would today be called liberals, but the pro-white, America First movement since the 1930s, when it had the support of 80 percent of the public,has always supported traditional values and morality.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,535
Location
Pennsylvania
For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" />  Part 2


by Edmund Connelly
<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">January 23, 2008

"Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for the world state headquarters." Israel Shamir in Cabbala of Power
"The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite." Kevin MacDonald
"We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man." Edgar Steele
In Part One of this essay, I argued that it was nearsighted to view the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza as an isolated event. Rather, I suggested, the Jews were intent on eventual world domination. Most certainly this is true with respect to Jewish power over white Christians.
To bolster that claim, I pointed to Wilmot Robertson's observation in his book The Dispossessed Majority that in the 1960s and 70s white American Christians "had become a people of little or no account in their own country." I then pointed to a theological explanation for this dispossession, turning to the views of Israel Shamir, who wrote, "Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. . . . De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday's Masters of the World [non-Jews] will become slaves in all but name."
For those not disposed to a divine view of this <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">kulturkampf [/I]between Jews and whites, Shamir's theological views can be piggy-backed onto secular arguments such as Robertson's. Rather than using Robertson's arguments, however, I prefer to turn to an intriguing essay that appeared in a book edited by the late Sam Francis. Titled "Race and Religion: A Catholic View," the essay was written by New Yorker Richard Faussette. Though Faussette situates his arguments in the Old Testament, his analysis is a sociological one in the mold of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald's theory on group evolutionary strategies.
Faussette's analysis goes back to biblical times when Jews of that era implemented a system of niche recovery to compensate for their partial displacement by the Assyrians. Faussette sees this system as being anachronistically employed to this day:
Our enemies are not Assyrians. They are the agents of the global economy; ethnic elites (their borders are where their people are) colluding with our own managerial elites. Mesmerized by the prospect of fantastic incomes, they are centralizing the world's economy and abandoning local loyalties for a "citizenship" of the world. Unable to conquer us militarily, they have succeeded in engaging our armed forces around the world as they repopulate our urban centers and our law enforcement agencies with an alien elite and an alien underclass rigorously conditioned by the media.<A name=Gaza></A>
If you conceived of this as today's multiculturalism, which Faussette portrays as a new Babel and a recipe for disaster, you would not be wrong. But, should we surrender to this program, we will suffer what Moses prophesized: "You will become a horror, a byword, an object lesson to <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">all the peoples amongst whom the Lord disperses you[/I]."
Though some see the system of importing foreign populations as a lapse in judgment, Faussette claims that "the system is not broken. It has been re-engineered by private interests and liberal ideologues, lobbying our elected representatives to increase the flow of cheap labor and anything else they can profitably get over the border."
If this system is not broken, who built it and for what purposes? In essence, the goal is to displace white Americans with non-whites, and in particular white elites with Jews. Shamir also observed this: "The Jews compete with the native elites of the Gentile society for the right to exploit the Gentile worker and peasant." Outcompete is the more appropriate word, for Shamir found that in 17th-century Ukraine Jewish masters were far more efficient, "extracting from the natives SIX times more taxes and dues per person than a gentile landlord did."
In this struggle with non-Jewish leaders, Jews can either massacre or expel their rivals, as they did in Russia during the Revolution. Shamir quotes Solzhenitsyn as follows:
[During the Bolshevik Revolution] executed army officers were Russians, the noblemen, priests, monks, deputies were Russians. . . . In 1920s, the pre-revolutionary engineers and scientists were exiled or killed. They were Russians, while their place was taken by Jews. The best Russian Psychiatric institute in Moscow, its Russian members were arrested or exiled, while their place was taken by the Jews. Important Jewish doctors blocked the advancement of Russian medical scientists. The best intellectual and artistic elites of Russian people were killed, while the Jews grew and flourished in these (deadly for Russians) years.
While much of this has gone down the memory hole, an excellent confirmation of the above can be found in Yuri Slezkine's exposé,<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> The Jewish Century[/I]. Kevin MacDonald later isolated the anti-Christian eliminationist focus of the Bolshevik attack, which can be found in his review of Slezkine called "Stalin's Willing Executioners?" (See here and here.) Chillingly, Slezkine quotes Leonard Schapiro's comment that "anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator." The Black Book of Communism estimates that up to twenty million Soviet citizens were murdered during the period of Jewish dominance in the early decades of the USSR. This is why Slezkine originally coined the phrase "Stalin's willing executioners."
So what does this have to do with America today? A lot, as both Faussette and MacDonald note. For the Jews' ancient displacement strategy is as effective as ever, as Jewish ethnic activist Earl Raab made clear:
The Census bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible  and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Because the West could not yet be conquered militarily, the Assyrian strategy of capturing and removing the native population, which demoralized the people and prevented organized resistance, was untenable. The tactic then became the importation of foreign elements "to devalue our niches, fragment our communities and place us under foreign administration. The result is the same." In other words, as Faussette writes, "the Jews will recover their niches in the lost nation of Israel which will be a Jewish land under Jewish rule (homogeneous and religiously unified), but the host nations where Jews settle in Diaspora are condemned to a fractious and imposed proto-Assyrian cultural pluralism (heterogeneous with no dominant religious influence) that ensures Jewish hegemony in Diaspora."
Often cloaked as "anti-racism," this program of dispossession applies equally to America and Palestine. "Anti-racism," Shamir writes, "is a denial of the autochthon's [native's] right to decide his fate; a tool to separate Man from his native landscape. This concept de-legitimizes objections to swamping a land with a flood of immigrants and ruining the society's fabric."
Again, because Jews in America are incapable of defeating or removing us militarily  unlike their ability in the Middle East  they resort to ideological attacks, an important one being the imposition of their new religion, the Holocaust Narrative. "Whoever accepts the Holocaust as the most important historical event," Shamir quotes one thinker as saying, "is able to carry out the civil war against the traditionalist majority and becomes a member of the in-group for the globalists."
Shamir adds how the Holocaust "also has a theological value as this event is offered to supplant the Crucifixion for believers." Certainly any Christian even half aware of culture and law in the last half century must admit a growing emphasis on Jewish suffering and the guilt of the Christian West. There is a reason for this, as Shamir explains:
Slave cults are growing now among the Europeans, and the cult of the Holocaust is one of them. Theologically, this cult is an adaptation of the Jewish spiritual rule for Christian minds, as it replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha [Calvary] with Auschwitz, and the Resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state. People who argue with the dogma of Holocaust are met with treatment the heretics were given in the days of yore. They are excommunicated and excluded from society.
Given the vast power of modern media, Jews have naturally turned to it as a means of control. The fracturing of native populations through use of the media is central to this. Faussette makes this point with respect to the indigenous white population's loss of the media:
If the majority of European American Christians held the most lucrative niches in American society, the media would be unable to depict us as a cruel and "intolerant" majority whose niches rightfully belong to the victims of "white hatred and oppression." The very fact that the media vilification of the European American Christian majority goes on apace is proof positive that people who identify with us and have a concern for our welfare are no longer in the ascendancy. There may be many more of us, it is true, but we no longer occupy the elite niches in which power is centralized. Even our ability to depict a positive image of ourselves to our own populations and to the peoples of the world has been wrested from us by the hands of powerful and persistent detractors.
Examples of vilification of white men and elevation of Jews and other minorities are far too numerous to mention. The list of Holocaust and anti-Nazi films alone is massive. Add to that the rise of African American movie stars such as Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, and Will Smith, most of whose movies fit the numinous Negro narrative, and you will have some idea of the visual power arrayed against whites.
Faussette makes this clear:
It is not enough to say that the broadcast media are powerful. They create a separate and caustic virtual reality, then broadcast that ideologically driven reality into the homes of millions of people and dare to suggest that their horrific depiction of us is an accurate reflection of who we really are, what we really do and what our history has really been. We are so saturated with the propaganda many of us can no longer tell the difference between ideology and reality, nor are we the only ones upon whom this burden of a separate "reality" has been imposed. By the time an alien crosses our porous borders he has been conditioned by the international media to believe that the indigenous "white people" are recent interlopers on their own land; noxious bigots who stole the land from the noble people who were here before them. Millions of people are fed these overt and subliminal messages every day via continuous media broadcasts.
The parallels with the propaganda techniques of the Communist Soviet Union, particularly in the early days, are manifest, as Faussette explains: "Demonizing an indigenous majority population to turn competing minority populations against them is a genocidal tactic with recent historical precedent." Like the "former classes" slated for elimination in Russia, the American majority is now the targeted class.
The use of terror was prescribed then and is again being used, though "many of us seem oblivious to what is going on <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">here[/I] and <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">now[/I]." The terror comes through the educational and media propagation of the notion that indigenous white Christians are the villain class. Or, if one prefers Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag's version, "The white race is the cancer of human history." Operating under the pretext that they are fighting for universal civil rights, Jewish activists, in a sense become the current equivalent of the Jews in Russia who were "Stalin's willing executioners."
An integral part of this terror involves ritual public humiliation, another key aspect of the media's strategy to demoralize the American majority. First and foremost is the public dissemination of the message that whites are "powerless to deflect the media barrage of humiliation and vilification of our race, our various ethnicities, our Christian religion and the nation's history." Whites must now live quietly with the knowledge that infamies committed against them warrant no notice in the public eye, while any assault by an individual white on a designated minority group will result in ritual condemnation of not only the assailant but the broader majority culture as well.
Thus, it was never just "in the air" that the media, schools and legal system would take the turn they did in the 1960s against the American majority. Rather, it is another Jewish movement, as Kevin MacDonald made clear recently in a column on this site:
For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. . . . But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements. . . .
The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before.
Faussette draws the same dark conclusion:
Consider for a moment the campaign of demonization of the European American Christian majority and its culture that we see in the media, academia and legislated from the bench. What if this campaign mirroring the public vilification employed by ardent and merciless communist regimes is completely successful here in North America, not now perhaps, but in a generation or two, something for our grandchildren to inherit?
Imagine an economic downturn of blackouts, food shortages and riots in which all law enforcement niches are filled by media-molded unassimilated immigrants and indigenous psychologically prepared minorities; law enforcement personnel conditioned to believe that the people they're sworn to protect are noxious bigots who deserve the violence they suffer.
Make no mistake, we white Christians in America are being as effectively removed from our lands as are the Palestinians from theirs now. While our disappearance is far less immediate and painful, the end result is the same. Indeed, if we white Americans were thinking correctly, we would be in the streets chanting "We are all Palestinians now!"
Instead we are treated to nonsense in the opposite direction, as goyim show fealty to the Jews by proclaiming solidarity. One need only skim news channels to find this. For instance, our media masters are again trying to divert our attention from Gaza by screaming over the appearance of mere graffiti on a few synagogue walls. (Never mind that in many of these cases  in which, by the way, no harm comes to any Jew  a Jew is found to have perpetrated the act.) Yet with respect to the burning bodies of Palestinian women and children, our media is subdued.
Shamir correctly interprets this posture: "The quietude of the West should frighten us well beyond the Middle Eastern context, as it possibly means our civilization is dead. . . . It implies that the Europeans and Americans have lost the sacral core, and our profaned civilization is doomed to extinction, unless we'll turn away from the edge of the abyss."
Is there a solution? James Petras suggests that "Until we neutralize the pervasive power of the Zionist Power Configuration in all of its manifestations  in American public and civic life  and its deep penetration of American legislative and executive offices, we will fall short of preventing Israel from receiving the arms, funding and political backing to sustain its wars of ethnic extermination."
Agreed. But effecting this change will be a monumental task.
One of the first steps is to recognize that your fate as a white American may quickly become as perilous as that of the Palestinians caged into Gaza. Next, follow the advice of Kevin MacDonald from the column just noted:
Whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interestsas white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.. . . No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.
Now replay in your own mind the recent scenes of unopposed slaughter and destruction in Gaza. Then imagine that it is <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">you[/I] and <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">your[/I] family caged and massacred like that. Will this thought experiment prompt you to at least acknowledge your identity and interests as a white American? It should.
Finally, follow the word of intrepid Internet warrior Justin Raimondo, who just wrote in his column Gaza Is the Future: "Look at Gaza and see the future. Then go out and do something about it." Well said.
[url]http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Gaza2. html#Gaza[/url][/b]
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
Don Wassall wrote:

That's like saying that because someone like Frank Colin (partly Jewish) wound up as head of a Nazi group in the 1970s, the Nazis were pro-Jewish.

Not really Don. The white's only immigration policy wouldn't intentionally lead to Communism and Socialism, in what some term Strasserism/Yockeyism, but would engender it nonetheless. The 80% of the population that supported "America First" largely put people that didn't agree with their principles in charge. I mean, they voted for FDR. Come to think of it Don, I think Northern Voice has advertised books from one of the 1930s most prominent "America First" members, Gore Vidal, whom I believe has also written homosexual literature. Though I'll concede that Vidal is a good, insightful writer despite his sexual perversions. Besides, I don't get the Colin reference as an analogy because, as I tentatively recall, he committed suicide after he found out he was part Jewish; so he was true to his ideology. Arguably, he was a stronger adherent to Nazi ideology than Rockwell, who still wanted to have a relationship with Colin after discovering his ancestry.

The whites only policy would simply make whites weaker and less capable. Look at how the Ivy League had a WASP, old boy network to keep others out. Look how lazy and degenerate the WASP establishment became!

Do you want to see Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller or George Walker Bush have more power for heap sakes? The CFR was founded on racial exclusion! Look what happened.


Oh, and on a semi-side note, look up Leo Felton if you've never heard of him. He was a terrorist from a few years ago.Edited by: Freedom
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Don Wassall said:
For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><O:p> â€â€￾ Part 2</O:p>


Fabulous article! It is loaded with valuable information. Needs to be read several times over to get the full import.
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
KP, you wrote "And as a result of that policy, Israel started a series of covert terrorist attacks on America which would then lead us into a war with Israel. Which side would you fight for? "

I'd fight for America, but disagree with the immigration policy. It's essentially saying that I'm not an American. But that scenario is semi-impossible. Without that immigration policy, Israel has already started a series of covert terrorist attacks on America, a la the Lavon affair and the like, and the US even helped Israel more. If Israel attacked the US because of that policy, Pat Robertson would probably blame it on Christians not obeying god's law.

So what made you come up with that scenario? IMO, that's a thousand times more absurd than my statement Don called silly.

P.S. Don, the Gaza Bell article looked pretty interesting, but I only skimmed it. I'll read it some other time because I'm kind of busy.Edited by: Freedom
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,535
Location
Pennsylvania
Freedom said:
Don Wassall wrote:

That's like saying that because someone like Frank Colin (partly Jewish) wound up as head of a Nazi group in the 1970s, the Nazis were pro-Jewish.

Not really Don. The white's only immigration policy wouldn't intentionally lead to Communism and Socialism, in what some term Strasserism/Yockeyism, but would engender it nonetheless. The 80% of the population that supported "America First" largely put people that didn't agree with their principles in charge. I mean, they voted for FDR. Come to think of it Don, I think Northern Voice has advertised books from one of the 1930s most prominent "America First" members, Gore Vidal, whom I believe has also written homosexual literature. Though I'll concede that Vidal is a good, insightful writer despite his sexual perversions. Besides, I don't get the Colin reference as an analogy because, as I tentatively recall, he committed suicide after he found out he was part Jewish; so he was true to his ideology. Arguably, he was a stronger adherent to Nazi ideology than Rockwell, who still wanted to have a relationship with Colin after discovering his ancestry.

The whites only policy would simply make whites weaker and less capable. Look at how the Ivy League had a WASP, old boy network to keep others out. Look how lazy and degenerate the WASP establishment became!

Do you want to see Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller or George Walker Bush have more power for heap sakes? The CFR was founded on racial exclusion! Look what happened.


Oh, and on a semi-side note, look up Leo Felton if you've never heard of him. He was a terrorist from a few years ago.


I don't even know where to begin. Your previous post was silly because it posited that pro-white immigration forces in this country have been pro-homosexual and pro-abortion and pro-UN. That's just plain out wrong, completely wrong; it sounds like some kind of Orwellian, upside-down,revisionist view of American history. You confuse the early eugenicists -- who were liberal, nanny state types like the prohibitionists and suffragettes of the same era -- with the vast majority of pro-white groups and meldit into a blanket declaration that those who have supported restrictive immigration, White domination and traditional morality were forerunners of the promoters of today's liberal agenda. WRONG!


Many of the supporters of America First positions in the '30s voted for FDR because they had the same problem we still face -- only two choices, forcing one to pick the "lesser of two evils." Generally speaking, working class whites voted Democrat, upper class whites Republican. Some Whites favored socialistic type policies as an antidote offered by the New Dealers as an alternative to the policies that resulted in the Great Depression. Similarly, the powerful Populist Party of the 1890s also advocated some policies that could be termed socialistic -- but the Populistswere pro-white and opposed to all the degenerate social policies of present day liberalism. They were first and foremost for the White working and middle class, as have been almost all organizations fighting for a White oriented immigration policy.


Gore Vidal is old, but he isn't old enough to have been "one of the 1930s most prominent 'America First' members." He had just turned 4 years old when the stock market crashed. He was also a leftist, never pro-white or pro-white immigration. One of his most famous moments was when he called Bill Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" on national TV during the 1968 Democrat national convention. He has never shown anything but hostility to those who advocate traditional policies when it comes to race, immigrationand morality. Because he shares the views of Nationalists on one issue -- foreign policy -- does not by any stretch make him a Nationalist or an America Firster as the term is understood.


The pro-white movement has always beenopposed to the "WASP" power structure. The CFR was founded to promote globalism. The only "whites" the government and groups such as the CFRhave been for over the last century is their fellow very few whites at the very top of the power structure, and that was based primarily on protecting their financial position, notbecause ofa race-based ideology favoring Whites. U.S. history couldn't be more clear than that the government hasn't been pro-White for a long, long time.


I'm astonished at your ignorance of these things, oralternatively your unique interpretation of well-established historical facts. That's exactly why I made theFrank Colin analogy -- because your connections and conclusions are as upside down as saying that the Nazis supported Jews because one of their leaders was Jewish. Edited by: Don Wassall
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
Thanks for the response.

But Colin killed himself! Some Nazis would have supported that decision, though I don't think Rockwell did. I'll have to check. I'll concede that my recollection there is tentative. The Nazis were pro-Jewish as far as suicide was concerned!

One of the quirks and hypocrisies of both Buchanan and the ANU is that they're "nationalists," yet support the Confederacy. How can you support self determination and an indivisible nation state? I used to agree with Buchanan and now I agree more with Lew Rockwell due to those questions.

I meant that Gore Vidal is one of the most prominent people today who were "America First" members. A few years ago, when I had to read "Inventing a Nation", I read that he was a literal member of "America First" in high school. Also, he continues to believe that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII post Pearl Harbor. If the actual group came before the generic term, I'd have to say that he is an America Firster and a homosexual.

If I "confuse the early eugenicists -- who were liberal, nanny state types like the prohibitionists and suffragettes of the same era -- with the vast majority of pro-white groups and meld it into a blanket declaration that those who have supported restrictive immigration, White domination and traditional morality were forerunners of the promoters of today's liberal agenda," it's because
the nanny state, suffragettes, Madison Grant eugenicists wound up with all of the votes from the pro-white immigration constituency!

Traditional morality was never really part of any political agenda before the 1970s so it didn't even matter what one's moral preferences were. Most politicians knew that James Buchanan was queer. opposed to all the degenerate social policies of present day liberalism.

On the Populist Party, you claim that, "They were first and foremost for the White working and middle class, as have been almost all organizations fighting for a White oriented immigration policy." Okay, but then how come modern candidates including Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have advocated THE EXACT OPPOSITE POLITICALLY! Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are the EXACT OPPOSITE of William Jennings Bryan on a lot of issues. As for it's "pro white" immigration policy, why don't we ask all of the white Catholics back then what they thought of Thomas Watson. Hmmm...doesn't seem to pro-white to me.

On a side note, if you're gonna justify policy in Bryan's name, why would you do it with Darwinian evolution? I don't think you've ever done this, but David Duke has. Duke ran on the Populist ticket, which I believe you chaired, in the '80s and has also championed Darwinian evolution. BRYAN EXPLICITLY OPPOSED TEACHING EVOLUTION BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT PROMOTED BIGOTRY, at least that's what he said at the Scopes trial.

Also, I don't think you guys realize how much sh*t ex-Jews take when they convert to Christianity or another religion. Why don't you ask Howard Phillips?! I've never spoken with him, but I bet it would be an interesting conversation. Edited by: Freedom
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,535
Location
Pennsylvania
Freedom said:
Thanks for the response.

But Colin killed himself! Some Nazis would have supported that decision, though I don't think Rockwell did. I'll have to check. I'll concede that my recollection there is tentative. The Nazis were pro-Jewish as far as suicide was concerned!

One of the quirks and hypocrisies of both Buchanan and the ANU is that they're "nationalists," yet support the Confederacy. How can you support self determination and an indivisible nation state? I used to agree with Buchanan and now I agree more with Lew Rockwell due to those questions.

I meant that Gore Vidal is one of the most prominent people today who were "America First" members. A few years ago, when I had to read "Inventing a Nation", I read that he was a literal member of "America First" in high school. Also, he continues to believe that the US shouldn't have gotten involved in WWII post Pearl Harbor. If the actual group came before the generic term, I'd have to say that he is an America Firster and a homosexual.

If I "confuse the early eugenicists -- who were liberal, nanny state types like the prohibitionists and suffragettes of the same era -- with the vast majority of pro-white groups and meld it into a blanket declaration that those who have supported restrictive immigration, White domination and traditional morality were forerunners of the promoters of today's liberal agenda," it's because
the nanny state, suffragettes, Madison Grant eugenicists wound up with all of the votes from the pro-white immigration constituency!

Traditional morality was never really part of any political agenda before the 1970s so it didn't even matter what one's moral preferences were. Most politicians knew that James Buchanan was queer. opposed to all the degenerate social policies of present day liberalism.

On the Populist Party, you claim that, "They were first and foremost for the White working and middle class, as have been almost all organizations fighting for a White oriented immigration policy." Okay, but then how come modern candidates including Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have advocated THE EXACT OPPOSITE POLITICALLY! Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are the EXACT OPPOSITE of William Jennings Bryan on a lot of issues. As for it's "pro white" immigration policy, why don't we ask all of the white Catholics back then what they thought of Thomas Watson. Hmmm...doesn't seem to pro-white to me.

On a side note, if you're gonna justify policy in Bryan's name, why would you do it with Darwinian evolution? I don't think you've ever done this, but David Duke has. Duke ran on the Populist ticket, which I believe you chaired, in the '80s and has also championed Darwinian evolution. BRYAN EXPLICITLY OPPOSED TEACHING EVOLUTION BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT PROMOTED BIGOTRY, at least that's what he said at the Scopes trial.

Also, I don't think you guys realize how much ex-Jews take when they convert to Christianity or another religion. Ask Howard Phillips!


You'rereminiscent of a chimp throwing a bunch of food at the wall to seehow muchof it sticks. And very little of yours does.


How Colin died and what Rockwell thought of him is irrelevant. In fact, Rockwell died over a decade before Colin had his moment of infamy. It was an analogy, remember?


The ANU does not support an "indivisible nation state." We support self-determination and freedom of association.


"Traditional morality was never really part of any political agenda before the 1970s so it didn't even matter what one's moral preferences were."


Another assertion so profound in its ignorance that I can't respond other than to shake my head in amazement that anyone could seriously make such a statement.


Who cares if David Duke has a different opinion on evolution than William Jennings Bryan? Again, totally irrelevant. No two people agree exactly on every issue. We're talking generalities, not hair-splitting.


Here is your original statement: As for immigration, I would feel that a "whites only" immigration policy would lead to Communism and Socialism. Notice how all the Immigration Restriction League, Nordic supremacist, and pro-eugenic members turned out to be pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-Globalist. Never forget that it was the Nordic lobby that gave us the UN and turned into both the Neo-Cons and the Liberals!


I rebutted it.Now, if instead of throwing food at the wall you want to try to defend that statement by giving facts showing how "all" supporters of groups supporting a pro-White immigration policy and "Nordic supremacy" turned out to be "pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-globalist," and how the "Nordic Lobby" morphed into today's neo-cons, please enlighten me.
 

Bart

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,329
Freedom said:
Thanks for the response.

But Colin killed himself! Some Nazis would have supported that decision, though I don't think Rockwell did. I'll have to check. I'll concede that my recollection there is tentative.


Framk Collin killed himself? I would agree your recollection is tentative all right.Your debating style reminds me ofProfessor Irwin Corey. Edited by: Bart
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
I'm looking it up. I might have confused Frank Collin with another Nazi leader.

Yeah, I've confused Frank Collin with Dan Burros. Sorry Don about that little bit of misinformation. But most of the food seems to stick to the wall just fine.

Don wrote, "Who cares if David Duke has a different opinion on evolution than William Jennings Bryan? Again, totally irrelevant. No two people agree exactly on every issue. We're talking generalities, not hair-splitting. "

What? That's completely relevant! He ran on a party called the Populist Party! Since you mentioned them and since you chaired a party called the Populist Party, I am assuming that you wanted to conjure up Bryan's party and that Duke admired Bryan because he ran on the ticket. This isn't a generality! Duke and Bryan clearly have completely different ideologies! Bryan prosecuted the Scopes' trial because he thought inappropriate discussion of evolution would foster bigotry, at least, that's what he said. Bryan feared David Duke! The irony is that Duke unofficially evoked his name when he ran!

Bryan steadfastly opposed the gold wing of anti-immigrant lobby. Most of his anti-immigrant beliefs were due to immigrants, who were unable to succeed at self-reliant farming, coming over and finding simpler industrial jobs due to a high tariff. He viewed the tariff like a form of welfare for industrial workers at the farmers' expense. It had nothing to do with the people who were anti-immigrant because they feared "job competition."He just didn't want immigrants to come over here for welfare. Of course, he advocated welfare for other people by championing a graduated income tax. That's where he went wrong.


You wrote:

"all" supporters of groups supporting a pro-White immigration policy and "Nordic supremacy" turned out to be "pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-globalist," and how the "Nordic Lobby" morphed into today's neo-cons, please enlighten me.

If you want me to do that thoroughly, it'd take a few days since I'm busy, but I'd have a very short explanation. It started off with the Transcendentalists, who thought they could essentially create God in the form of a government, since their intuitions were always right. Due to this, they assumed their racial lineage was superior to everybody else's lineage and they made their institutions pander to them. Eventually, they became too coddled and weak. Coddling leads to social degeneracy.
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
You're right Bart. I was thinking of Dan Burros. I still contend that the Nazis are pro-Jewish as far as suicide is concerned.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,535
Location
Pennsylvania
Freedom said:
I'm looking it up. I might have confused Frank Collin with another Nazi leader.

Yeah, I've confused Frank Collin with Dan Burros. Sorry Don about that little bit of misinformation. But most of the food seems to stick to the wall just fine.

Don wrote, "Who cares if David Duke has a different opinion on evolution than William Jennings Bryan? Again, totally irrelevant. No two people agree exactly on every issue. We're talking generalities, not hair-splitting. "

What? That's completely relevant! He ran on a party called the Populist Party! Since you mentioned them and since you chaired a party called the Populist Party, I am assuming that you wanted to conjure up Bryan's party and that Duke admired Bryan because he ran on the ticket. This isn't a generality! Duke and Bryan clearly have completely different ideologies! Bryan prosecuted the Scopes' trial because he thought inappropriate discussion of evolution would foster bigotry, at least, that's what he said. Bryan feared David Duke! The irony is that Duke unofficially evoked his name when he ran!

Bryan steadfastly opposed the gold wing of anti-immigrant lobby. Most of his anti-immigrant beliefs were due to immigrants, who were unable to succeed at self-reliant farming, coming over and finding simpler industrial jobs due to a high tariff. He viewed the tariff like a form of welfare for industrial workers at the farmers' expense. It had nothing to do with the people who were anti-immigrant because they feared "job competition."He just didn't want immigrants to come over here for welfare. Of course, he advocated welfare for other people by championing a graduated income tax. That's where he went wrong.


You wrote:

"all" supporters of groups supporting a pro-White immigration policy and "Nordic supremacy" turned out to be "pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-globalist," and how the "Nordic Lobby" morphed into today's neo-cons, please enlighten me.

If you want me to do that thoroughly, it'd take a few days since I'm busy, but I'd have a very short explanation. It started off with the Transcendentalists, who thought they could essentially create God in the form of a government, since their intuitions were always right. Due to this, they assumed their racial lineage was superior to everybody else's lineage and they made their institutions pander to them. Eventually, they became too coddled and weak. Coddling leads to social degeneracy.


How dense are you????? The Colin reference was an ANALOGY, not the starting point of a debate over the American Nazi Party and its various personalities. Your ability to change the subject by adding endless tangential and irrelevant slop on top of slop is remarkable.


As for the rest, I'm done. I've devoted the past quarter century of my life to studying America First principles, as well as being on the front lines of trying to revive them, but I apparently know nothing compared to the learned Mr. Freedom.


One unsolicited piece of advice, however. From what you've posted you're only about 19 or so. You're smart and I think (though I'm not positive) that you're well meaning. You need to work on sharpening your analytical skills. I'm not referring just to the above exchange but from reading your posts over the past few years. You tend to take a random factoid or two(andmore than a few of the factoids turn out not to be facts at all) and then draw sweeping conclusions that are often off the mark.
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
Freedom said:
No KP, it isn't code for anything. I don't care about Israel, but I consider that land theirs because they built it up. It's the same logic that other posters here use for justifying why America shouldn't give land back to the Indians. The Palestinians want the built up land, not the desert wasteland. If they were asking for reparations, they'd be much more persuasive.

Besides, most of the west didn't recognize "the Palestinians" as owners of Palestine. The British Empire was recognized as the land's rightful owner, in any meaningful context.

Not only would I be comfortable of cutting off all aid to Israel, but I'd be supportive of it as well. That's why I'm confused as to your referencing Israeli settlements as "illegal." Under whose legal codes? You don't say "immoral," you say "illegal." It's as if you feel the US, or a UN group, should police the world. You sound like a neo-Con right there.

As for immigration, I would feel that a "whites only" immigration policy would lead to Communism and Socialism. Notice how all the Immigration Restriction League, Nordic supremacist, and pro-eugenic members turned out to be pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, and pro-Globalist. Never forget that it was the Nordic lobby that gave us the UN and turned into both the Neo-Cons and the Liberals!

I'd get rid of affirmative action and welfare and patrol the border to solve our immigration problem. If our workforce can't compete with workers from third world countries, WHAT CHANCE DO WE HAVE OF STAYING A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!
smiley7.gif


So KP, stop your crying and show your true colors. Do you care about true European heritage because it promotes character and hard work? Or do you just care about character and hard work to promote a psuedo-European heritage?

Paragraph 1 rebut: The "illegal" settlements are not on built-up land. The settlements are mostly on bare land and/or taken over villages. They get "built-up" because of our aid. Israel would be a third world country or not even exist without our support. There are more "developed" nations than Israel (like most white nations) - can they kick Israel out and claim it for whites? And I've addressed the "Indian" analogy already.

Para 2: Most of the West could care less about Palestine at that time. The land was still owned in actuality (not fluffy words like "recognized") by mostly Palestinians. If the British owned it - then who terrorized the British off the land? I wonder.

Para3: Ok, I'll replace illegal with "immoral." Feel better? I guess legality and the UN counts only when you see fit. In the paragraph you just wrote, you reffered to the UN British mandate of Palestine. In this paragraph international law is for suckers. Nice spin.

Para4: When I read this paragraph I could actually smell the BS through the computer screen. While you support a Jews-only policy in Israel, White people would become communist homosexuals in a whites-only world??? I don't think you know much about white history if you think that. Whites (not jews) built modern civilizations. I think we'll be fine with just ourselves. And the attack on Nordics as neocons and neolibs. The one common thread that neocons and neolibs have is their undying support for Israel. Don't throw this on some sort of mythical Nordic supremacists lobby. What lobby would that be anyway?

para5. Agreed.

para6. What's a psuedo-European heritage? When did I promote that? Your the one who doesn't think we can handle a true whites-only nation - like the real Old world European cultures.

Edited by: Kaptain Poop
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,535
Location
Pennsylvania
Bart said:
Freedom said:
Thanks for the response.

But Colin killed himself! Some Nazis would have supported that decision, though I don't think Rockwell did. I'll have to check. I'll concede that my recollection there is tentative.


Framk Collin killed himself? I would agree your recollection is tentative all right.Your debating style reminds me ofProfessor Irwin Corey.


smiley32.gif
Perfect!
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
Been reading the thread and posts. When BO was elected, it was proof that white people are stupid. Whats the point of trashing each other on this site? I think it would be better to assert our respective points rather than trash each other.

We are in soup sanwhich and the future of our country looks bleak. Our race is being marginalized as I write this, why must we trash each other. I think it would be better if we respectfully point out each others ignorance without demeaning each other. Soon, we will have less of each other and will find ourselves in a terrible hole in the ground.
 
Top