See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Predictions come true (Republicrats and Democans flip-flop now that their masters have changed roles
Source:
none
URL Source: http://none
Published: Apr 9, 2009
Author: me
Post Date: 2009-04-09 11:05:04 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 1613
Comments: 56
During the elections, myself and a few other prescient few on f4um made the prediction that if Obama won that Republicrats and Democans would flip-flop on many of their views such as the war on terror and big government. After perusing TOS1, TOS2 and DU, I see that our predictions have come true in spades. The Republicrat butt-sniffers on TOS1 and TOS2 who have spent the last 8 years supporting every big government program shoved down the throat of the American people now all of a sudden disapprove of big government and act as if the world is ending because Obama is furthering the same programs implemented by Bush. On the other hand, the Democans, after bitching and moaning about the war on terror, are now falling in lockstep with the very same policies they claimed they hated under Bush. If there is a larger groups of fools and tools in this country, I've yet to see them.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
It's already started with John "Open Borders" McCain turning on the mexicons: _________________________________________________________________________ It reminds me of the South's states' rights defense against federal interference in the late 60s. It's the only way to conduct a racial contest if you can't actually talk about race. The federal powers are not the issue, but who they are being used for and against. Taken at face value, it is of course absurd, and a testament to the victory of the anti-whites. Pro-constitution types are usually just as absurd; it's an argument that only matters in a white society.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Words are cheap. Let's see him change a vote.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. The anti-federalists were all white guys.
He IS a Senator: he'll huff and he'll puff and THEN he'll call for 100,000 H1-B visa's for "professional" migrant farm workers...
_________________________________________________________________________ They were even more pro-freedom. And I was speaking of contemporary pro-constitution types, as I'm sure you know. It doesn't always matter in white societies -- in fact has seldom mattered, ever -- but it is in white societies that it has the best shot at an audience and success.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Yes, I knew to whom you were referring. Unfortunately, too many of our contemporary pro-constitutionalists don't know their country's history very well. Government has always been about loopholes and dis-information and white governments have always been exceptionally adept at it. Sorry.
This is just one reason I am basically praying for a crackdown. I want these fucking morons to pay and pay big. I will not lift a finger to help them. If they dont stay far away from me I'm more likely to just kill them myself. Or at the least gut shoot them. I hate them more than words can describe. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
On average, yes, white institutions are better at anything they set their minds to. Anyway, as Kipling said, as a white man I am used to the lies whites tell. If government is to tell lies, and of course it will, let them be white lies.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. So why aren't white individuals better at seeing through all the little white lies? Kill the Indian to save the Indian ... kill the Muslim to save the Muslim. Give us your first born white child to use as expendable weaponry in these wars. Jesus Annie, how much dumber can it get? And yet how many white people swallowed those little white lies, hook line and sinker?
I dunno. We have some very determined competition. I know. Let's put them all on an island and have a TV show about it. Kind of like the old FreeRepublic Cruise the Klowns orchestrated and documented but even more fun.
Or, say, all races are equally intelligent and the South ought to be desegregated and destroyed. The black underclass is the portrait of the liberal Dorian Gray. The answer is that the contingencies of reinforcement assure it. There is an immediate personal payoff, in competition with other whites, in an appeal to a moral principle rather than naked self- or racial interest. The negative consequences (to whites, when they are negative) are seldom personal, somebody else pays them, and they are deferred. Although in the Indian case it was, apparently, adaptive, I'm not sure how widespread that "saving" sentiment was. Whites had a better, if imperfect sense of race then, and fewer illusions about noble savages. It works perfectly well in a white society... :/ Those that don't like the way whites are should simply stay away from them. Many, maybe most whites would be delighted and happy to reciprocate.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Without integration laws, people would be like water ... seeking their own level. So who's been at the forefront of the promotion of integration laws? And why? But yes, white people are more geared toward competition than cooperation and maybe that's part of the problem. They only cooperate well when they feel threatened by "outsiders", whether that threat is real or only perceived through massive propaganda campaigns. And remember, it isn't only white on color (or the reverse). Americans also felt the need to kill white Germans to save them from their errors. BTW, the "killing to save" sentiment was strong amongst whites during the Indian wars. They had to be cleansed of their pagan beliefs ... or die. Not to mention, they were hogging the land.
People once spoke of the German or British races. This usage makes some sense. Perhaps not coincidentally, ancient China's most rapid period of technological advance was the warring states period. They had to be cleansed of their pagan beliefs ... or die. There was also a movement to whiten and Christianize them, and also the idea that the only good Indian was a dead one, the last attitude most commonly found among white communities with the most experience at living near Indians. It just so happened that their interests coincided with those of the empire-builders in Washington. Whites have been schizophrenic about race ever since they emerged from Europe. So who's been at the forefront of the promotion of integration laws? And why? Mostly Jews and their yes-men. The pseudo-scientific basis (whitey likes science and pretensions to objectivity) for it originated with Boas. Interestingly, Boas was not always an equalitarian. He became one in the 1920s, after the first world war, as the white empires went into decline, political Zionism gained real strength, and America was flooded with diverse immigrants from Europe. It served the purpose of keeping the American empire together, helped to assimilate the huge wave of European immigrants, and laid the groundwork for Jewish access to American formal power centers. In the 60s and beyond, equalitarianism served the purpose of suborning potentially revolutionary black male leaders, by giving them a direct and explicitly black stake in the system, rather than the indirect and implicitly white-assimilationist stake provided by the old establishment.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. You: Mostly Jews and their yes-men. The pseudo-scientific basis (whitey likes science and pretensions to objectivity) for it originated with Boas. Agreed, but the answer I was actually hoping for was demoblicans and republicrats, or leftists and rightists, who have both promoted integration, talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on which party had majority control at the time. They have, in the process, sold us ALL out under the transparent guise of diversity. The so-called two party system has always been a scam and Americans of all creeds and colors have fallen for it, generation after generation. A people may be academically superior, but when it comes to common sense, there seems to be less of it in the hallowed halls of academia than you'd find in the roughest third world village. There was also a movement to whiten and Christianize them, and also the idea that the only good Indian was a dead one, the last attitude most commonly found among white communities with the most experience at living near Indians. Many of them did christianize, but anyone wishing to "whiten" them must've been depending on scaring them white. But how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was mostly whites with direct experience with Indians who set the policies? The westward ho settlers and miners wrote policy? I dunno, maybe George Catlin didn't get close enough to them, although he surely did write plenty about his direct experiences with them. Of course what he wrote wasn't what the REAL policy writers wanted to hear. So they ignored him. The more things change ...
Sorry. But how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was mostly whites with direct experience with Indians who set the policies? I didn't. And Catlin was a tourist.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Then why did you say "the last attitude most commonly found among white communities with the most experience at living near Indians. How do you know this is true, then? Well, other than that's what the writers of the cowboy and Indian movies would have us believe. But in today's world I'd probably have to agree with you, white people definitely resent having to live anywhere near such poverty.
I said: It just so happened that their interests coincided with those of the empire-builders in Washington. And Catlin was a tourist.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Jamestown, for one. To which testimony should I give greater weight? That of men who built white communities near Indians or that of a tourist who couldn't keep it in his pants? By definition, living for a few weeks or months with any one Indian tribe off-and-on for eight years is not living like a white man -- or an Indian, for that matter.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. And Catlin was a tourist. Yes, in the effort to clear more land for the immigrant's enterprises, their interests did coincide, but the average immigrant had little to no impact on federal policies and if said immigrant lost his top knot in the process it was of no concern to the policy writers in Washington. The immigrants were nothing but human bulldozers for the eastern elites and once the west was "won", those same elites set about taking it from the conquerer's descendants. Question: Does a "tourist" who goes out and lives amongst the people not have better insight into those people than a penny dreadful writer who has never set foot outside the city limits?
Well okay, we'll try it a different way. If you were an Iraqi and had read the msm accounts of what was happening over there, you'd have only one side of the story. The same is true with Jamestown. There is another side to that story, too. Demonizing people is the best method of discrediting their words. It always works.
Yes. Does a "tourist" who goes out and lives amongst [some other] people not have better insight into those people than a penny dreadful writer who has never set foot outside the city limits? Usually he is worse. The city writer most usually deceives others. The tourist anthropologist deceives not just others, but usually also sincerely deceives himself. But then, he's most often white, isn't he?
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Yes, Indians resisted colonization. I can hardly blame them for that.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. I think it was a lot more than simply resisting colonization. www.chroniclesofamerica.c...rn- colonies/jamestown.htm (Jamestown) The nineteenth day Percy with several others going into the woods back of the peninsula met with a narrow path traced through the forest. Pursuing it, they came to an Indian village. We Stayed there a while and had of them strawberries and other thinges . .. . One of the Savages brought us on the way to the Woodside where there was a Garden of Tobacco and other fruits and herbes; he gathered Tobacco and distributed to every one of us, so wee departed. Percy's Discourse But later .... www.mrnussbaum.com/histor y/jamestown.htm Besides managing Jamestown, John Smith procured food from local Indians for European trinkets and goods. Despite Powhatan's demand for guns, John Smith refused to trade them, and often burned villages and stole food when Indians would not trade. I suppose a few burned villages and empty food caches might tick somebody off enough to retaliate. The whole thing kind of reminds me of those who scream in pain while they're rearranging your face. Sorry for going off topic.
The Indians were no more savage and brutal than those who attempted to exterminate them and steal their land. While some tribes were warlike, for example The Algonquin Confederation (which also had a sophisticated Representative Government), they also had distinct codes of honor and conduct. Many of the so-called Indian Massacres followed White Massacre's of Indian Villages. It wasn't the Indians who provoked the "Battle of The Little Bighorn" but that heroic figure George Armstrong Custer who rode into the encampment of the tribes and began slaughtering women and children. Were the Indians savages for resenting having their unarmed loved ones run down and skewered on Custer's Cutlass? As near as we can trace one of my grandmothers was a survivor of the "White Man's Justice" and was taken as a surviving baby from a massacre and raised as a White Englishwoman. While she was a very beautiful woman one can look at the 1903 Wedding Photo and know she was Indian - but only if you know what you are looking for as far as facial shape etc., ... She acted and behaved as any intelligent and well educated Englishwoman would behave. It is culture, not race, which is the greatest determinant of behavior and attitude. IQ is most closely tied to literacy level, and most IQ tests would be better classified as literacy tests as you have to have the correct vocabulary to understand them. My own father was classified as an imbecile with an IQ of 36 because the Marine Corps I.Q. test he took used vocabulary common to city kids and he was raised in the country. [He went on to represent the USMC in the National Rifle Championships (finished second by a couple hundredths of a point), and later became a professional pilot and flight instructor.} That is also why the common sleights toward country kids began as they uniformly scored low because the vocabulary in the tests was geared toward kids raised in an urban environment. I never fail to be both amused and sickened by the boobs and nitwits who have to inflate their own overarching egos by acting as though the color of their skin added to their, doubtful, "intelligence".
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Demonizing people is the best method of discrediting their words. It always works on the ignorant. There, fixed it. ;-)
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Yes, but then the writers of popular culture are most often white no matter whose culture is being discussed. There's a certain arrogance in that. And those who impart information that is outside the conventional wisdom are often denigrated as attempting to deceive. Interesting words: believe and deceive. I wonder which is most destructive.
Thanks for the fix. :)
Absolutely. The only question I have on a comparative basis is which cultures have been better suited to nourishing life, rather than destroying it.
Absolutely. The only question I have on a comparative basis is which cultures have been better suited to nourishing life, rather than destroying it. I think different cultures at different times have been successful to one degree or another. Gauttama Siddhartha, the Buddha, who was born into a warrior culture, which he turned his back on, and civilized half the world had at least some of the answers. The message of Christ, as stated and practiced by him not as practiced by the bloodthirsty barbarians who call themselves "Christian", was another. Egypt, for a time, had a successful culture based upon agriculture and learning, but gave way to the corrupt priesthood, debasement, and corruption of the rulers. Climate, culture, and religion are all intertwined and one can find the most savage and warlike cultures springing up in the most savage environments. Religion, in its most enlightening forms, has been the leavening which has kept the planet less than the total hell the psychotic power seekers always seek to create.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
The message of Christ, as stated and practiced by him not as practiced by the bloodthirsty barbarians who call themselves "Christian", was another. Important points. That's why I have a problem with the theory of evolution, at least when it comes to humans ... its more like devolution.
The biggest problem with evolution is that it begins with a false premise i.e., that all life, thought, and existence arises only and solely from a material cause. Evolution, as practiced so dogmatically by the Darwinists, begins with the presumption that matter created itself and then created life. Excluded is any of that dimension we call the spiritual i.e., the self awareness which we as sentient beings are. The presumption, totally unproved or supported, is that thought is an artifact of "chemical reactions" and that the universe "just happened". One can see the further exposition of this in Darwinian evolution in the rejection of a causal force, life force, or as Bergson termed it "Elan Vitale'", which motivates and drives those forces which we see as evolution. Since the Darwinists always, and without examination or justification, reject this non-material element they are, as is shown by their theory's inability to account for all observations, a dead-end failure. They are no less dogmatic than a "young earth fundamentalist". Both have a fixed idea which is not amenable to reason or evidence. They are both convinced that they are right and that there is no possibility of error, and evidence to the contrary is rejected and damned. The perceived devolution is simply the result of allowing psychotics to rule and the inability of most people to confront evil, name it correctly, and oppose it.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Well, yes, of course they are each convinced of their infallibility. I wasn't really talking about the various theories on Darwinism, though, only that cultures always progress/regress into tyranny and chaos. And getting back to the topic of this thread, the exact same thing can be said of democrats and republicans/liberals and conservatives and where they've gotten us with their "bipartisan" backdoor agreements. Only now there's nowhere left to run.
Returning, as per your gentle nudge, I agree that the "bipartisan" back door agreements are doing us in. What most people don't get, but some are beginning to, is that both so-called parties (or as the founders called them "factions") are controlled from the out of sight top of the Kleptocratic Plutocracy which has subverted our government and is working to literally enslave us. The problem, in part, is that most people are decent and do not view other people as mere animals to be used for their amusement and aggrandizement. They mistakenly think that everyone thinks as they do - reasonably sanely and tolerant. Unfortunately that is not true and we are now in a situation where some of the most psychotic individuals on the planet are attempting to establish a total slave state with themselves, in what they insanely view as their rightful position, cemented into place at the top of the literal hell on earth that they seek to create. This has been a problem in more than one culture. One can look at the decline and fall of Rome and see the same pattern. A brutal, and quite insane, Kleptocracy subverts the legitimate government; through bribery, extortion, and murder; gained control and Rome slid down in an ever dwindling spiral into extinction. Our current batch of psychotic monsters wish to avoid Rome's fate by establishing a total control, both physical and via Psychiatric perversions, which will allow them to avoid Rome's fate. The problem of course is that because they are psychotic they cannot create and only destroy. Their level of creation is only destruction as they are quite mad. It is likely that unchecked they would in time revert the planet back into an uninhabitable wasteland with few or no survivors. On the positive there is movement toward stopping them. I think they will in the end fail, as like all criminals, they are basically stupid and overestimate their own abilities. Whether we will emerge without hundreds of millions dead is yet undecided.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Returning, as per your gentle nudge, Gosh no, I was enjoying that side bar very much, just feeling a little guilty for taking the whole thing off track. The problem, in part, is that most people are decent and do not view other people as mere animals to be used for their amusement and aggrandizement. They mistakenly think that everyone thinks as they do - reasonably sanely and tolerant. Unfortunately that is not true and we are now in a situation where some of the most psychotic individuals on the planet are attempting to establish a total slave state with themselves, in what they insanely view as their rightful position, cemented into place at the top of the literal hell on earth that they seek to create. Scary. True. Letting my rampant pessimism run wild here, we will not escape their clutches unscathed, not by a long shot, no matter what we do or don't do. More people are beginning to recognize that fact, so why are we all being so timid about doing what has to be done? Or at least trying to reach a concensus on what needs to be done instead of fighting among ourselves over it. The people doing "our" talking for us keep saying just to educate others and make no move that might be construed as a threat to the overlords, like that'll make a difference in the long run ... people have been talking it up for thirty years and more (if anyone was listening), and all the while the oligarch's grip on us kept getting tighter and tighter. Does anyone think more talk will make them stand down?
1. Because of the ongoing PsyOps and Perception management by the whores of the controlled media people are being held in check through manipulations. 2. As well people are afraid and really do not know what to do. 3. This is an information war and we are still in the stage of getting the information out. This is resulting in an erosion of their control. You can see that they know this by the frightened reactions and the attempts to speed up the collapse of the economic system and establishment of greater physical control, but it is not working. At this point the most likely scenario is that their attempt will collapse from lack of cooperation from people in key positions. The Oath Keepers movement is a very hopeful sign. The evil oligarchs require voluntary compliance by people as their PsyOps is not as effective against people who have begun to wake up and more and more people are waking up. Without the cooperation of the police and military they cannot establish physical control and at this point people are aware in large numbers of the tactic of false flag terrorism to psychologically herd people and thus that is foreclosed as a viable option. So, while the situation is still fluid even now their edifice is beginning to crumble. They were too timid with 911 to get everything they needed. Had they hit us with another event soon following the 911 false flag it is likely that they might have succeeded in getting their control programs all in place. However, they acted too soon and not with enough sustained terror to do what they wanted. Almost from day 1 there were people calling 911 an inside job. As well there were already elements becoming aware which to some degree forced their hand, and forced them to accelerate their plans. As a result they will, thank God Almighty, in the end - fail in their attempt. However, it has been a close call and we are not through yet. They may yet try another 911 to try to frighten people into surrendering their freedom for security from the monsters who conduct the terror ops. The problem with that is that we, the truth movement, are a vocal near majority. Different groups are coming on line and since there is no one central command point but different pro-liberty groups loosely confederated they have no one point to attack. They don't have enough agents to infiltrate and control every group, and it is likely that some of the people they are using are playing along while working to subvert their goals. Thus the MIAC Reports seeking to frighten Police into cooperating in the enslavement of their own people. However, thanks to patriots leaking the reports out they are in a pickle because once the attempt is exposed it loses its effectiveness except among really really stupid cops. Stay Tuned.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I understand that the situation is different today than is was in my father's time when Gordon Kahl was being hunted down like a rabid animal and murdered in cold blood, or the tragedy of Wounded Knee being revisited, as well as many other events the oldtimers were lied to about in the media. But okay, so more people are informed and onboard now than ever before and the edifice of control is crumbling before our eyes ... I'll still stand by my pessimism that we will not come out of this unscathed. The powers that be will turn us on each other like attack dogs before they'll chance a defeat. Just take a look at the rampant race baiting that's going on, especially post election (oh, what a coincidence). I'm afraid it won't take much provocation to make people forget all about their mutual enemies and get that race war fired up. And unfortunately there would probably be some distracted truthers in the trenches, as well. I would be so happy to be wrong about that!!
But they rightly saved the most gruesome treatment of white corpses for their "special friends" among the colonists -- deluded race-traitors, really -- like George Thorpe.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. That they are.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Oh well.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Am I to take it, then, that you are an untruther? I will say this, though, you do seem to run unquestioningly on a predetermined track.
Well pardon me, but I don't think there is any such thing as a race traitor, there are simply people who want to experience people, places and things that would probably frighten the daylights out of others.
A lot of it is probably right. It's just unimportant.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Most aren't consciously so. Thorpe wasn't. They're mostly just (white) social climbers. there are simply people who want to experience people, places and things Tourists.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. You care about whether whites attacked the Indians first or visa versa a few hundred years ago, but when factions of the current american government attacks americans you think its unimportant? Yikes.
Not really. But you seem to. My concern with that episode is that too many whites have the same racial illusions many did then. when factions of the current american government attacks americans you think its unimportant? What is an American?
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Explorers, voyageurs, adventurers, colonists. If not for them, where would you be?
I see your dilemma now.
Yes. I'm already in race war. It's been going on since long before I was born.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Dare I ask, you against whom?
Mainly other whites. Jews, admittedly, and regrettably are mostly enemies -- virtually everyone who pooh-poohs the race data is either ignorant or a Jew -- but they aren't the problem. Whites are their own worst enemy. :/
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. Which ones aren't the problem, the Sephardic Jews, the Ashkenazi Jews or the Khazar Jews? If its the latter, then we're not really talking about racially semitic people at all. I think the problem is actually political zionism and a lot of the people you're currently at war with may fit that description better than the all encompassing "jew". Zionism is a mental aberration, not a racial feature. As far as whites being their own worst enemy, you'll get no argument out of me on that score.
None of them. I think the problem is actually political zionism It might be your problem, but that's not my problem either. It's just not my fight, either way. Yes, AIPAC sucks, but it's another sideshow. I just wish Jabotinsky and his brothers had picked some place like, oh, Madagascar. And Avigdor Lieberman seems like a right sensible fellow to me. Obviously his program isn't directly applicable here, since loyalty oaths aren't worth squat from Jews. We don't need such an oath anyway, and won't embarrass justice by demanding one.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out. It's the only way to conduct a racial contest if you can't actually talk about race. The federal powers are not the issue, but who they are being used for and against. Taken at face value, it is of course absurd, and a testament to the victory of the anti-whites. Pro-constitution types are usually just as absurd; it's an argument that only matters in a white society. I don't understand what this has to do with grassroots Republicrats and Democans flip-flopping. The chances are good that the majority of both are lilly-white. Besides that, my Korean born and raised wife of 17 years is more of a small government Constitutionalist than 90% of white America.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 The purpose of the legal system is to protect the elites from the wrath of those they plunder.- Elliott Jackalope
It's the only way to conduct a racial contest if you can't actually talk about race. Besides that, my Korean born and raised wife of 17 years is more of a small government Constitutionalist than 90% of white America. Besides is right. She's your wife, genius; and she ain't living in Korea any more, is she? And the more they come here, the less they marry whites. And the more they vote Democrat, the default party of non-whites. But yes, pretty much any race can be welcomed in a white society in sufficiently small numbers. Or even non-trivial numbers, provided whites consciously retain and maintain a superior position as citizens.
A nation based on race has to keep other races out. A government dedicated to a proposition has to keep ideas out.Republicrats and Democans would flip-flop on many of their views such as the war on terror and big government.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#2. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
If there is a larger groups of fools and tools in this country, I've yet to see them.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#3. To: X-15 (#1)
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#4. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#2)
Pro-constitution types are usually just as absurd; it's an argument that only matters in a white society.
#5. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#3)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#6. To: RidinShotgun (#4)
(Edited)
The anti-federalists were all white guys.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#7. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#6)
#8. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
If there is a larger groups of fools and tools in this country, I've yet to see them.
#9. To: RidinShotgun (#7)
(Edited)
white governments have always been exceptionally adept at it.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#10. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#9)
On average, yes, white institutions are better at anything they set their minds to.
#11. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
If there is a larger groups of fools and tools in this country, I've yet to see them.
#12. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
The RDs.....
#13. To: RidinShotgun (#10)
(Edited)
So why aren't white individuals better at seeing through all the little white lies? Kill the Indian to save the Indian ... kill the Muslim to save the Muslim.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#14. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#13)
#15. To: RidinShotgun (#14)
Americans also felt the need to kill white Germans to save them from their errors.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#16. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#15)
Me: So who's been at the forefront of the promotion of integration laws? And why?
#17. To: RidinShotgun (#16)
(Edited)
the answer I was actually hoping for
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#18. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#17)
I didn't.
#19. To: RidinShotgun (#18)
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#20. To: RidinShotgun (#18)
(Edited)
How do you know this is true, then?
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#21. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#19)
(Edited)
I said: It just so happened that their interests coincided with those of the empire-builders in Washington.
#22. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#20)
Jamestown, for one. To which testimony should I give greater weight? That of men who built white communities near Indians or that of a tourist who couldn't keep it in his pants? By definition, living for a few weeks or months with any one Indian tribe off-and-on for eight years is not living like a white man -- or an Indian, for that matter.
#23. To: RidinShotgun (#21)
The immigrants were nothing but human bulldozers for the eastern elites and once the west was "won", those same elites set about taking it from the conquerer's descendants.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#24. To: RidinShotgun (#22)
The same is true with Jamestown. There is another side to that story, too.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#25. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#24)
#26. To: RidinShotgun (#16)
Many of them did christianize, but anyone wishing to "whiten" them must've been depending on scaring them white. But how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was mostly whites with direct experience with Indians who set the policies? The westward ho settlers and miners wrote policy? I dunno, maybe George Catlin didn't get close enough to them, although he surely did write plenty about his direct experiences with them. Of course what he wrote wasn't what the REAL policy writers wanted to hear. So they ignored him. The more things change ...
#27. To: RidinShotgun (#22)
(Edited)
Demonizing people is the best method of discrediting their words. It always works.
#28. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#23)
But then, he's most often white, isn't he?
#29. To: Original_Intent (#27)
Demonizing people is the best method of discrediting their words. It always works on the ignorant. There, fixed it. ;-)
#30. To: Original_Intent (#26)
It is culture, not race, which is the greatest determinant of behavior and attitude.
#31. To: RidinShotgun (#30)
It is culture, not race, which is the greatest determinant of behavior and attitude.
#32. To: Original_Intent (#31)
Religion, in its most enlightening forms, has been the leavening which has kept the planet less than the total hell the psychotic power seekers always seek to create.
#33. To: RidinShotgun (#32)
(Edited)
Important points. That's why I have a problem with the theory of evolution, at least when it comes to humans ... its more like devolution.
#34. To: Original_Intent (#33)
They are both convinced that they are right and that there is no possibility of error, and evidence to the contrary is rejected and damned.
#35. To: RidinShotgun (#34)
#36. To: Original_Intent (#35)
(Edited)
#37. To: RidinShotgun (#36)
Letting my rampant pessimism run wild here, we will not escape their clutches unscathed, not by a long shot, no matter what we do or don't do. More people are beginning to recognize that fact, so why are we all being so timid about doing what has to be done?
#38. To: Original_Intent (#37)
#39. To: RidinShotgun (#25)
I suppose a few burned villages and empty food caches might tick somebody off enough to retaliate.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#40. To: RidinShotgun (#38)
distracted truthers
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#41. To: RidinShotgun (#28)
Yes, but then the writers of popular culture are most often white no matter whose culture is being discussed.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#42. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#40)
That they are.
#43. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#39)
deluded race-traitors
#44. To: RidinShotgun (#42)
Am I to take it, then, that you are an untruther?
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#45. To: RidinShotgun (#43)
I don't think there is any such thing as a race traitor
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#46. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#44)
It's just unimportant.
#47. To: RidinShotgun (#46)
You care about whether whites attacked the Indians first
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#48. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#45)
Tourists.
#49. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#47)
What is an American?
#50. To: RidinShotgun (#49)
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#51. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#50)
I'm already in race war. It's been going on since long before I was born.
#52. To: RidinShotgun (#51)
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#53. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#52)
virtually everyone who pooh-poohs the race data is either ignorant or a Jew -- but they aren't the problem.
#54. To: RidinShotgun (#53)
Which ones aren't the problem, the Sephardic Jews, the Ashkenazi Jews or the Khazar Jews?
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
#55. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#2)
It reminds me of the South's states' rights defense against federal interference in the late 60s.
#56. To: Hayek Fan (#55)
I don't understand what this has to do with grassroots Republicrats and Democans flip-flopping.
The 'inner Jew': Tyler Durden with a yarmulka.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest