Death of God exhibit

[White Shogun]

Death of God exhibit

Are Christians going to riot, kidnap, and behead people over this exhibit?

Is Bill Clinton going to visit Mexico and insist that the artist be arrested and charged with a hate crime?

I don't think so.

 

[emt1]

maybe the christians should start rioting

 

[JD074]

Maybe we all should start rioting. Look at how whites have acquiesced and submitted to the rioting Muslims in France and elsewhere in Europe. And we all know about Negro riots here in the Bad Old US of A. What we're doing now isn't working. Maybe we should do what everyone else is doing, apparently with some success.

 

[guest301]

Speaking for Christians(some), It's unlikely we ever will "riot" over anything. I think the implementation of abortion on demand in this country thirtyfour years ago and the systimatic killing of over 45 million babies should have caused a "riot' among Christians and even a organized insurrection(spelling)against the goverment but sadly it didn't. I hate to concede a point to the many critics of Christianity on this site but sometimes we can be too heavenly minded for our own good. It's one thing to turn our own personal cheek but we shouldn't be turning everybody else's.

 

[White_Savage]

Isn't it obvious why you don't hear about big Christians riots? It should be. Christian and White continue to be almost synomous. I will point out that White atheists and various hay-then minorities don't riot either, nor do the Asians who follow Buddhism or some such.

I imagine now that Evangelicals are having some success in "converting" Africans, Latin Americans, and other unstable turd-world populations, incidents of so-called "Christian" terrorism will arise.

I'd like to see some statistics on abortion. My gut instinct is that abortion probably mostly takes out undesiriables before they scream their first breath into my air(black women are famous for multiple abortions) but I could be wrong. One thing's for sure, women in prison should continue to get free abortions, damn you Gohmert and other house Republicans. Though why women in prison are getting ^^%%^@$%@%#$@#$ pregnant is another matter in and of itself.

 

[guest301]

I didn't know it was "your air" WS. Abortion is wrong(murder) no matter what the race of the mother or economic condition. But it's "your air". There have been plenty of white babies aborted too. At least twenty million since 1972.

 

[JD074]

Hey Aragorn, I appreciate your objectivity. Whites have basically become submissive to non-whites. It's embarrassing to admit that, but there's no way around it. We used to instill fear in them, now they instill fear in us. We're afraid of using force, except for political ends (like the war in Iraq.) We're afraid of using force to protect ourselves, to serve our own interests. We've had one small "riot" in Australia, we need to multiply that by a thousand. We used to know how to use force to achieve our objectives, like conquering North America, for example. Unfortunately, some of that has come back to haunt us, like putting Africans in chains and bringing them here. Nonetheless, we have to become comfortable using force again. Educating people is important, but ultimately we'll have to fight back.

 

[guest301]

Thanks JD074..I try to be objective and I can see that you make the same effort as well. In general, I can't say I disagree at all with the above posting. I agree with you about we should have never brought the "africans in chains over here" I think America is still being punished, judged or at the very least still paying the consequences for that decision to indulge itself in the slave trade. You are right..force is somtimes necessary. We would not be a free country today if the colonies (largely christian populated)had not used force to free ourselves of British tyranny and their taxes. We seem to lack the backbone today for such a action although there are plenty of reasons to do such a thing again.

 

[JD074]

We would not be a free country today if the colonies (largely christian populated)had not used force to free ourselves of British tyranny and their taxes.

That's true, too. I was actually referring to the force we used against the natives. Also, I could mention the force used against Mexico.

And while these aren't exactly examples of "force," I should also mention the mass deportations of illegal immigrants that have occurred before (they voluntarily left,) as well as decades-long moratoriums on immigration, and bans on specific groups, like the Chinese. (Today it would be primarily Mexicans, among others.) These are the actions that are utterly impossible under the "soft tyranny" of PC America.

We seem to lack the backbone today for such a action although there are plenty of reasons to do such a thing again.

Absolutely. It's a shame that the Republican Party has abandoned virtually every core conservative principle. If true, old-fashioned conservatives had control of the Republican Party, we'd be fine. (Contrary to many WN's, I don't think that our leaders have to be specifically "racialist" or "WN.") Where are the Republicans who are for limited government? Where are the Republicans who are against waging unnecessary wars? Where are the Republicans that are against illegal immigration, as well as curbing immigration in general? Every time you hear about "securing our borders" you also hear about "guest worker program." They don't care. If only a grassroots conservative movement could somehow take hold of the GOP, or defeat it with a 3rd party. I know, highly unlikely. But that's about the only shot we have. Any explicitly race-based movement, like "White Nationalism," is even less feasible- far less feasible. Sure, we could work to make it feasible decades from now. But there's also the very realistic possibility that it will never be feasible, or that by the time it is feasible, the country will already be long gone. Non-racial conservatism is the best option that I can see right now, but how can it penetrate the Two-Party Monopoly? I don't see it happening any time soon.

Many non-racial conservatives are aware of the problems. Pat Buchanan, for instance, understands the problems of Big Government, immigration, neocon imperialism, the hemorrhaging of jobs and industry, and collapsing white birth rates. He was a Washington insider, and is a mainstream media figure. If he gets it, why can't others?
Edited by: JD074

 

[guest301]

I agree that "non-racialist" true conservatism is the best way to go. WN's will probably never be mainstream and it would take a horrendous civil war and division of the nation to bring about such a thing. I know some of you want that but get real....I also agree with you JD074 about where is the limited goverment Republicans used to expouse...There are still plenty of house of representative Rebubs like that but there are very little in the Senate or in the current administration. It's like when you get elected you lose all your idealism and compromise everything to stay in office.
It's too bad the term-limits movement never progressed any further than it did. Going into politics should not be a career but a public service. I hold out hope that a Sen George Allen or Sen Rick Santorum would be more of a representative for true conservative values when hopefully they run for president in 2008. I like your use of the phrase "soft tyranny" ..that's what we have. I wish Bush was as agressive with the domestic agenda he ran on as he is with foreign policy(whether you agree with that policy or not)...Use the bully pulpit..speak over the media and to the people like Reagan did..and use your hard fought majority in both houses of congress to get social security reform, tax reform and traditional republican issues like cuts in goverment spending and waste through. I think he is a solid to good president but doesn't have the charisma and idealism I wish he had to live up to the kind of president he could have been.He's not the communicator Reagan was either..but he can't be blamed for that. 9-11 made the Bush presidency and it has also limited it..that's good and bad.

 

[JD074]

I agree that "non-racialist" true conservatism is the best way to go.

And I mean that from a purely strategic perspective. I don't have anything against racialism and White Nationalism from a moral or ideological perspective. You and I haven't come to that idea from the same perspective. Heck, I'm a separatist, to be perfectly honest with you. Obviously, that is far more radical than the typical conservative. But I must be honest and admit that it's just not a viable movement right now. We have tens of millions of non-whites in our country, and we do not have the power to separate from them... or make them separate from us.

WN's will probably never be mainstream and it would take a horrendous civil war and division of the nation to bring about such a thing. I know some of you want that but get real....

Maybe you should get real and realize what kind of problem we're facing, and the future that our multicultural society holds for us white folks. I don't think civil war and "division" (I assume you mean separation of the races) would be such a bad thing. It would be difficult at first, but it would be better for everyone in the long run. Let's face it, the majority of every racial group would prefer to be separate from other races. It's totally natural and morally acceptable. I find the idea of the United States getting split into several "ethnostates" somewhat appealing. I would rather us take back the entire country, but I would settle for separation within this land mass, as long as we had a supremely effective means to defend ourselves, protect our borders, and aggressively enforce laws barring them from living, working, and breeding in our areas.

Going into politics should not be a career but a public service.

Good point.

I hold out hope that a Sen George Allen or Sen Rick Santorum would be more of a representative for true conservative values when hopefully they run for president in 2008.

I don't know who Allen is but Santorum seems pretty milquetoast to me. We need radical changes in our immigration, spending, foreign policy, and tax policies. Very tough-minded people would be needed to make those changes.

I wish Bush was as agressive with the domestic agenda he ran on as he is with foreign policy(whether you agree with that policy or not)...

I'm not so sure. What if he were more aggressive with his guest worker program? That wouldn't be good. Nor would I want to see his Medicare debacle replicated elsewhere. I agree with the tax cuts, but not the expansion of the federal government under his watch. He tried to change Social Security, I'll give him credit for that. His No Child Left Behind program is just more federal interference in our schools. He nominated two conservative Justices (and only after the Harriet Miers blunder did he nominate Alito,) but both seem more or less moderate to me. We'll see what happens with abortion. And whatever happened to the whole Marriage Amendment thing? He's so soft on almost everything that conservatives care about. Except a tax cut. Whoop dee doo.

And I don't want to get in an argument about the war in Iraq, but come on. What a disaster. Altogether this war is going to cost us trillions of dollars, thousands dead and tens of thousands wounded. If Bush being more aggressive on the home front leads to results like that, no thanks. I would prefer him do less, not more.

I think he is a solid to good president but doesn't have the charisma and idealism I wish he had to live up to the kind of president he could have been.

That is so baffling to me. Wow. This guy has been one of the worst presidents ever. We've lost millions of jobs, our border is as porous as ever, his foreign policy has been a nightmare, abuse of power is rampant, and the federal government is exploding. Not exactly the legacy of a great president, or even a good one, or even a mediocre one. No, this is the "legacy" of one of the worst enemies our country has ever had.

Edited by: JD074

 

[White Shogun]

A guy writes one sentence, and the other guy writes a paragraph parsing it. Too funny!

 

[guest301]

JDO74 has got alot of time on his hands White Shogun..but he gets his point across. He should be rarely misunderstood because of it! PS...by the way I love Ann Coulter who is taking a beating on another thread...I'm choosing not to enter into that fray. One fray is enough for me today!

 

[White Shogun]

JDO74 has got alot of time on his hands White Shogun..but he gets his point across. He should be rarely misunderstood because of it! PS...by the way I love Ann Coulter who is taking a beating on another thread...I'm choosing not to enter into that fray. One fray is enough for me today!

I don't know if JD is rarely misunderstood.. or rarely read.

 

[guest301]

That one is between you and JD074! I read in full any posting that is directed towards me, no matter how long it is. But to do a line by line disection in return...I'm usually not going to do that. Really don't know how he and others do it anyway. Otherwise I would do it to your posts White Shogun!

 

[JD074]

JDO74 has got alot of time on his hands White Shogun..

Aragorn, you have almost 500 posts in two months, so you have your fair share of leisure time as well.

Same goes for Shogun, who has over 1600 posts in a year.

PS...by the way I love Ann Coulter who is taking a beating on another thread...I'm choosing not to enter into that fray. One fray is enough for me today!

She's at her best when she's skewering liberals. She's pretty clever at that, although it's not like it's hard to make fun of liberals. Of course she's a typical neocon on foreign policy.

Edited by: JD074

 

[guest301]

JD074..it's feast or famine for me in regards to leisure time to post. When I am watching a sporting event..the computer is nearby and I also have the pleasure of working for a good friend and I have liberal use of the computer. I may be taking a better job next week and /or a additional one and so my time online might change. I may have to just get me a laptop someday!