It's the Jews, stupid: For the last week or so, HalfSigma has been beating the drum that Ron Paul really hates Jews. Do I think Paul hates Jews? Well, let me say that I do not believe Dr. Paul is motivated merely by basic Jewish hatred. Instead, I believe Paul is, as he says he is, a strict libertarian Constitutionalist and that these principles dictate his often times ideologically rigid positions. But I believe this ideological loyalty has led him to harbor a slight animosity towards Jews, as he collectively blames Jews for their disproportionate membership amongst neocons and banksters.
In his series of posts on this topic, HalfSigma rejects Paul's close association with Murray Rothbard as evidence that Paul is not a Jew-hater, calling Rothbard a "self-hating Jew" and thus apparently disqualified from membership in the tribe. But, as I've noted before, a proper definition of anti-semitism should include solely ethnic-based animosity and thus even a "self-hating" Jew would find a similar fate as Edith Stein. That Paul can disregard both Rothbard's and von Mises' ethnic heritage implies that he is assuredly not a Jew-hater.
But Paul's Jewish problem goes beyond his own presumed biases, especially as it relates to his popularity amongst the anti-PC right. For example, take a look at this comment thread at Mangan's where my reticence regarding Paul's lack of explicitly race conscious nationalistic fervor is met with questions about my motives. One commenter notes that I have "the same dislikes of Paul that the Jewish HBD or Paleo bloggers have", another calls me "useless", and more than a few offered the inexorable "neocon" characterization. Funny that I criticize Paul for not celebrating white Christian America and all the Paul-bots can do is respond that I'm a Jewish neocon. In doing so, the Paul-bots expose their only real reason for liking Paul - he pisses off all the Jews, even the "conservative" ones, and won't genuflect before Israel (I like the latter though).
The alt-right Paul-bots ignore the fact that Paul has said essentially nothing positive about white America, thinks vague liberty is more important than traditionalist culture, opposes federal efforts for finding illegals, opposes a border fence, and has a pretty bad record on immigration, including an F from NumbersUSA. Sure, Paul pisses off the media and wonderfully articulates the problems of an insulated elite, but so does Sarah Palin, who reflects the heartland much better than politician lifer and doctor Paul. But then again, Paul's popularity lies in his singular ability to antagonize Jews, so none of these other things matter. Once again, the negative frame of reflexive alt-right pessimism manifests. (FWIW, I don't mind that he angers AIPAC Jews due to his lack of support for Israel because members of those kinds of groups have no loyalty to America, but his corresponding dhimmitude absolutely sickens me.)
Sterile conception of America and spurring a conservative renaissance: The Paul supporters will respond something along the lines of Chuck Rudd:
First and foremost, the modern Western tradition – and American culture – is based upon a strong rule of law, property rights, and the ability of families, communities and other small bodies (read: not centralized governments) to congeal in a natural and unimpeded way. Families and communities prosper because local support is a necessity. When distant support from a centralized authority enters the picture, those local ties begin to fray because they are less necessary.Basically, alt-right Paul supporters believe that "liberty" is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a return to a racially conscious white America. Before I argue against this, let me show how this sterile view of America leads to, ironically enough, a neocon paradigm as illustrated by this comment thread:
Moreover, if you don't believe that states rights IS American culture, and local control of decision-making IS American culture, then you are a liberal, and neocon, full stop."Economic and personal freedom" and "states rights" - that's America, huh? No "apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet"? No southern hospitality and northern Yankees? No pre-colonial Ivy League colleges? No Bible belt football? No Paul Revere's midnight ride, Pilgrims landing at Plymouth rock, Washington's cherry tree or crossing the Delaware, or Franklin's kite? No Boston Tea Party, California Gold Rush, or Pony Express? No Whitman, Twain, Hemingway, or Fitzgerald? No Leave it to Beaver, the quiet suburbs, the close small towns of the Midwest?
Paul is anti-collectivist as he believes that economic and personal freedom are axiomatic - that the power and the essence of a society and nation follows from that. to Paul, that freedom defines the United States - not an adherence to a certain culture, creed, or religion.
This sounds an awful lot like the neocons who think anyone can become an American, just as long as they buy into our "freedoms." The libertarian viewpoint says nothing about how a nation, built upon laws but not defined by them, ultimately arises from the genetic lineage of the people. If one defines nations merely by its Constitution, what separates America from the presidential republic of Central African Republic, the democratic republic of Zaire, and the constitutional republic of Mexico. I also aver that the Founders would never have supported this viewpoint, as they understood racial differences and how America, a land on a hill, owed itself in part to an intellectual inheritance from Europe.
As for the notion that culture will once again rise organically from political freedom, I'll cite Steve Sailer here. Note that I quote this in regards to how whites will or will not view themselves as a collective, not in regards to whites engaging racial nepotism.
Over the last millennium, something perhaps unique in world history occurred in Europe, especially in its northwestern quadrant (and, in later years, in its offshoots like America): a movement away from the fractiousness of clan and tribe, but without the usual congealment into despotism.In other words, whites don't appear particularly likely to "come together." I agree with Sailer here that whites will not just stand up and shake off 50 years of cultural programming from media, academia, and the elites. This assuredly will not happen in a "freer" society either. Especially if one considers Paul's hypothetical leadership being antagonistic towards the Republic (common man does not distinguish between his neighbors and the federal government) and reluctant to actually say anything good about American culture.
white Americans don’t want to act like the rest of the world, as the white nationalists advise them to, they want to act like white Americans. They don’t want to submit their individual freedom to their extended families, they want to marry whom they want to marry and then focus on their nuclear families.
While I've argued quite often that conservative America lies dormant, they need social sanction to express their views. Right now, only the anonymity of the Internet provides that. What we need is a socially acceptable, widescale institution to give our ideas social merit. Then someone in the Ivory Tower or polite suburban society can point to a national figure with the proper credentials as evidence that not only hicks from Alabama have these conservative viewpoints. For example, note how many times Phil Donahue mentions Jared Taylor is a Yalie. We are social animals and until some break occurs in our overriding culture, propagated by the elites in government, academia, and media, people will be too scared to say anything anti-PC.
Admittedly, one could argue I've just championed an impossible task - changing the elites' minds. Maybe I have or maybe I unjustifiably reject the idea that a mass uprising could occur by itself; OWS does not count, as it was totally abetted by widespread cultural leftism. Possibly, but I still think that a catalyst needs to come. The people are definitely ready, but they need a spark. And Paul, in regards to conservative consciousness and race realism, will assuredly not provide it. Another better alternative - transparent media and elite hatred of a conservative white Christian may be the best "spark", as evinced by recent rallying around Tim Tebow and Sarah Palin.
Other issues amongst tons of others: libertarians are blank slatists; Paul is a little too Alex Jones; Paul sure seems to like Muslims; states may be sovereign, but America is still a cohesive nation and culture; best of a bad lot? - No, I like Bachmann more, but ultimately I can't really support any candidates unless Tom Tancredo or Sheriff Joe Arpaio run. Admittedly though, those old "racist" newsletters make him look GOOD and there are some things I like about Dr. Paul, especially his understanding of elite collusion.
119 comments:
As disturbing as it is that the current crop of candidates is the best that the GOP can come up with to battle a weak incumbent President who needs to be defeated, it is more disturbing that Ron Paul is dominating any part of the discussion.
Mike
"The Political Commentator"
http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/12/todays-hatred-links-look-at-candidate.html
In reality what's going to happen is that either the current administration gets reelected, or we'll get a liberal quisling like Romney.
Thus, I approach the election from the perspective that Chuck Rudd provided yesterday: which candidate do we want to provide with the platform to make a cultural impact, similar to how Pat Buchanan's strong showing in 1991 gave him the legitimacy to make his "culture war" speech at the GOP convention.
I'm divided between Bachmann and Paul, agreeing fully with you about Paul's deficiencies.
There is a lot to chew on here, but I'll just mention Half Sigma's argument that Murray Rothbard was a self-hating Jew. That's like saying that Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas are self-hating blacks i.e. Uncle Toms. Rothbard - and I assume Paul - are consistent in their positions against any group - black, Jewish, or female - leveraging their past grievances for political gain which essentially involves State coercion and property redistribution.
The core, ur-problem with the Ron Paul Brigade is that their all-purpose remedy to all America's problems, ie strict constitutionalism and libertarianism in private and public life, was suited to a country that no longer exists.
For well over a hundred years, the USA has been diluting its racial make-up with "lesser breeds without the law" (first a huge number of Southern and Eastern Europeans, alongside swarms of Ostjuden; then millions of Mexican Indians; and then favoring the indigenous, and angry, Black population) - and now the Paul-approved solutions can offer nothing but more pain.
The Paul program works pretty well for homogeneous peoples whose origins exist north of the Alps - and for no other groups ever, anywhere. In a diverse society it will only make things worse.
As a wise man once put it, the Constitution didn't make the American people, the American people made the Constitution. Well said. And *that* people no longer exists, they have been replaced; this is no longer their country.
And the Jews certainly had a hand in this, but never forget that they never could have succeeded without huge numbers of Whites helping them every step of the way.
"I'm divided between Bachmann and Paul, agreeing fully with you about Paul's deficiencies."
Bachmann really does seem to "get" the importance of social conservatism in a way that Paul never will. A shame she seems to buy into Dubya's Wilsonian interventionism. Although she did once make encouraging comments about less involvement in the Middle East.
Paul, OTOH....
In all my political lurking I've rarely seen a Ronulan acknowledge just how wobbly their candidate is on important cultural/economic issues. They crow about him stopping Mestizo migration, but ignore his rants equating border controls with the Berlin Wall. They declare he'll stand up to minority "Civil Rights" racketeers, but gloss over the fact that he now counts MLK as one of his heroes. They reassure everyone that he's "personally" opposed to Sodomarriage & minority grievance mongering, and yet he was on Leno whining about Republicans who "hate" homosexuals & Muslims.
Ronulans wax poetic about abstract "Freedoms" and "Constitutionalism" (though, oddly enough, they rarely cite it). Preferring, maybe, to rant about Bachmann taking away their pot & porn. Suggest to them that ignoring socon issues (sexual permissiveness, drug use, European cultural insolvency, etc) in aggregate generates massive economic costs and they'll look at you like you're a Martian. Or Marcus Bachmann.
The more Paul & Ronulans get a chance to reveal themselves the worse it looks. Paul really does seem to be a pliable old man who could easily be influenced by a Left-Libertarian cabinet pushing the usual pro-Mestizo/Black Radical/Gay Radical garbage. Would President Paul's "personal opposition" to homosexualists, La Raza activists, etc. make the end result any different?
....but America is still a cohesive nation and culture...
---------------------
This ain't even close to true. It was never true in the past, and it's not true now.
Of course Ron Paul 'really hates the Jews.'
That's how anyone who dares oppose Zionism is branded.
Paul has pointed out that we give Israel a vast amount of Tax dollars in "foreign aid," and he notes that, like the foreign aid racket given to any other first world country, is nothing more than using tax money to pay off corporations for their goods and services.
Saying such things in our Zionist controlled media is akin to advocating a resumption of Hitler's final solution.
You simply cannot criticize Jews, Israel, or Zionism in anyway, or you are a racist anti-semite.
1. Liberty in our American sense is not vague, rather it is clearly defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
2. Freedom from the tyranny of the federal government has nothing to do with adherence to a given culture.
3. I don't remember Dr. Paul coming out against Apple pie or Chevrolet.
You must be a Jewish neocon.
Half Sigma is trolling you hard.
There won't be any collective white racial consciousness until whites are a minority, perhaps plurality. Racial consciousness is always expressed as victimhood. So I actually can see white nationalism arising somewhere around 2050, when the demographers say we'll be about 50% of the population.
As far as a US President embodying American culture as in all those items on your list - Paul Revere, etc - well, those are just dead white males to the Democratric Party, and who wants to stand up for that when your own countrymen find it passe, even white SWPL's? The moment you have to ram culture down someone's throat forcibly, that culture is dieing.
That's why culture must come from the bottom up, and not top down. Paleolibertarianism DOES have historical roots. It is American. Independence and going your own way is as American as apple pie.
In other words, whites don't appear particularly likely to "come together."
I think the issue is that White Americans simply don't like one another.
For years I've noticed excessive levels of competition and mutual animosity amongst Whites. It goes beyond reason.
Whites will not "come together" until forced to do so by circumstance and authority.
One isn't Jewish. He's a Christian Zionist.
One isn't Jewish. He's a Christian Zionist.
You must be a Jewish neocon.
I'm assuming the first one is serious and the second one is sarcastic. But good god people, did you read the post??!? I say absolutely nothing positive about Israel or Zionism. In fact, in this post, I say only negative things about Israel (we shouldn't kowtow to their needs) and AIPAC Jews (they have no loyalty to America). And somehow this makes me a "Zionist." I can't imagine you're that stupid so I'm just going to forget how retarded those comments are. But this also shows how unhealthy much of the discourse of the paleolibertarian/alt-right is. Basically if one takes a neutral view on Jews and not an indiscriminate "fuck you Jews" approach, they're attacked. Unhealthy, reflexive, and pessimistic.
Half Sigma is trolling you hard.
What?!? You actually think HS isn't being genuine?
regardless of your views on Israel, your "America fuck yeah" attitude still makes you a neocon. It's usually only the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and visit Jihadwatch that buy in to the "they hate us cause we're free" nonsense. They can't seem to understand that our disastrous foreign policy is the cause. And are you really criticizing Ron Paul for not being nationalistic enough. Do you want him to start talking about American exceptionalism and say he'll never apologize for America ? His policies are actually pro America. Policies, however, don't shape culture. That's what the media does. I know you're far too philo-semetic to ever talk about Jewish control of the media and the destructive effect it's had on the country.
What?!? You actually think HS isn't being genuine?
Semi-genuine. He really does dislike Ron Paul, but he engages in hyperbole about him to rile up Paul supporters and bring hits to his blog.
HS has admitted in the past that not everything he says on the blog is to be taken 100% seriously.
Personally, I think it's obvious that Ron Paul is a paleolibertanian true believer, and as such, that crude ethnic biases (such as antisemitism) are below him.
Have whites ever successfully come together just in the name of whiteness? If so, when. If not, why does anyone think they will start now?
your "America fuck yeah" attitude still makes you a neocon.
What does "neocon" even mean as you're using it? That I like this country? That I support this country? That I don't indiscrminately bash this country? That I don't sound like a disgruntled leftist who wants to move to Canada? If being patriotic and romantic about what this country has to offer (even if forces try to undermine those positives as we speak) makes me a neocon, then I guess I'm a neocon.
I know you're far too philo-semetic to ever talk about Jewish control of the media and the destructive effect it's had on the country.
"Philo-semitic" = not blaming Jews for all the problems in the world, even if one also notes their general anti-"goy" attitudes and calls the Inquisition NOT anti-semitic:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/12/jewish-attitudes-in-politics-and.html
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/10/defining-anti-semitism-spanish.html
It's usually only the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and visit Jihadwatch that buy in to the "they hate us cause we're free" nonsense. They can't seem to understand that our disastrous foreign policy is the cause.
LOL. Does our foreign policy help? No, but you completely ignore that Islam is a militant ideology with about 1000 years of hatred for the West. I mean seriously, you actually think Islamic hatred of the West started 60 years ago?!? EW sums it up wonderfully:
for I think most Americans, myself included, sense that even if were weren't in Saudi Arabia and didn't support Israel, that we'd still be a target of Islamist aggression on some other occasion and some other location. For that is the nature of militant Islam, and has been so since its inception over 13 centuries ago. Commentator Dorothy Rabinowitz made this exact point in the WSJ on Dec 23d (while criticizing Paul for being, in not so many words, an America-hater who sides with America's Islamist enemies), and illustrated her point by quoting the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: "the US a Satanic power that will, with God's will, be annihilated". Thus those who say that Islamists hate us "for our freedoms" are wrong in my book...Islamists hate us because we are kafirs, infidels, and they are on a mission from god to put us all under submission. They need no other reasons to come after us, our support for Israel and presence in Saudi Arabia are convenient pretexts for their fevered calls to jihad, and this is a fact I think the American people instinctively understand.
Semi-genuine. He really does dislike Ron Paul, but he engages in hyperbole about him to rile up Paul supporters and bring hits to his blog.
HS has admitted in the past that not everything he says on the blog is to be taken 100% seriously.
But nothing HS has said is particularly hyperbolic. It parrots what other mainstream Jews have been saying about Paul. Plus, it's just so damn obvious he's being geunine. I can't tell you why, but your comment pisses me off. Not everyone on the Internet is a dog.
Have whites ever successfully come together just in the name of whiteness? If so, when. If not, why does anyone think they will start now?
Not necessarily in the name of whiteness, but as a nation of Europeans, i.e. the entirety of colonial and American history prior to the 1960s.
I think Paul's paleolibertarian positions quite consistently lead him to oppose aid to Israel, which leads to the expected enemies (Jews of the left and right...I suspect if Italy were in the same bind we'd see the same response from Italian-Americans).
I'm angry enough at the corporations I may actually vote Republican for once in a Presidential election if he wins (which I do NOT expect).
BTW, what exactly is a neocon? I always thought it meant the jackasses at Commentary who dragged us into the Iraq War, but it seems to be an alt-right slur used generically the way 'fascist' is outside the 'alt-right'.
If you're talking about coalitions of Europeans banding against non-Europeans, the best examples I can think of are the various "Holy Leagues" that fought against the Ottoman Empire, and before that, the Crusades.
However, even in these coalitions, the Europeans were extremely fractious. The truth is that large scale cooperation is a very difficult problem for almost any people. The Chinese are the best at it by far.
BTW, what exactly is a neocon? I always thought it meant the jackasses at Commentary who dragged us into the Iraq War, but it seems to be an alt-right slur used generically the way 'fascist' is outside the 'alt-right'.
Exactly. In some parts of the alt-right, "neocon" means "whoever I don't like" or "whoever does not get off from incessant complaining about every single aspect of America and does not think America is the most wretched nation in the world."
While you divided into two sections. I read three main points in your arguments. You are hostile to Ron Paul because of three main points.
1. You believe his supporters only like him because he seems draw the hostility of Jews.
2. Ron Paul doesn't seem to be hostile enough to immigration.
3. You believe Ron Paul see America on a set of laws only and not as a cultural entity.
Now that is said. From the comments, I want to give a definition to Neo-conservatism. Ideologically, they have a belief that American needs to be the World's Policeman and be very active in the world militarily. In practice, they also seems to want to put Israel's interests above the US. Also in practice, they seem to be very tied up to the interests of the large corporations and Wall Street.
I suspect that other commentators use of the word "neocon" is the confusion to your argument about America as a distinct culture. Neoconservatives' ideology toward a military active in distant fronts tend to also have a belief in American Exceptionalism, Islam as an enemy that can only end in annihilation, and other views that overlap yours. So the previous commentator made that connection. But I doubt you're a fan of the large corporations and Wall Street crony capitalism (unlike Half Sigma, where one can be suspicious as he seem to express a subtle yearning to be part of the elite). Since Ron Paul seems to be the draw the great ire of Wall Street, your disposition seems to be telegraphing an implicit support.
(You did counter-argued that Sarah Palin also draw their ire too, but she does not seem to project a mental capability to really attack them, whereas Ron Paul seems to show that).
Now for the three consolidated points.
1. For topic about Jews. I have to express doubts that the rallying to Ron Paul is large or even substantially about the antagonistization to Jews. I suspect it is a mix of reason varied by the group of people. There's the outright libertarians. But I think there're also many are drawn by history of refusal to pander to Wall Street. Also the Anti-war people. Also the people who suspect something is wrong with the elite and see Ron Paul as someone standing up against them (you can say here Sarah Palin does too, but can you say she projects the intelligence to attack them?).
In short, I think he's drawing more than just some invisible anti-Semite crowd. Also, the word "neocon" mean not you're a support of the Jews while they are not, but you're a support of Wall Street, overpowered Corporations, and Crony Capitalism.
2. The second point. You're right that he won't as president support a fence or organize anything to send them out. But you're aware he wants to cut out welfare to Illegals, ensure no amnesty, and take out Birthright Citizenship. His stance to delegation to states means Arizona and other states can be free do as they please too.
(Full Disclosure: being Asian, I'm not too sure multiculturalism is unacceptable. I would like to have the option stay or go as I wish as long I'm not a drain or trying to oppress your culture (I can agree multiculturalism seems to aim for that). But we can agree Illegal immigration is causing pain, that media suppression and cover up to US media about the likely upsurge in violence by Blacks on White is unacceptable, constant apologies for their actions doesn't help either, and we can view the US as a distinct cultural entity as you try to articulate).
3. Your third point is Ron Paul only seem to be talking about the government and little of the US as a distinct culture. Now, I agreed when you wrote that the US entity is more than just a set of laws and amendments. I can see your concern that the US culture being teared up by liberalism and feminism. You argued that if Ron Paul is successful in breaking down the shrinking the government, nothing else changes and the TV shows remains the same way and the gender study professor will still teach the same vile. You're right that a Ron Paul America probably won't bring the change allow your to bring yourself to the open and then "come together" as you said.
However, I do want to point out that much of the power of Feminism and Liberalism stem through the arm of government through tons of programs and mandates. Corporations plays a role too and is help by the government. Wouldn't a Ron Paul presidency hurt that by cutting that arm off? Thus inline with your aims? It might not grant you the ability to talk openly and find a champion, but it could start stemming the tide by cutting the government role.
I'm lukewarm on Paul, viewing as the least of evils. Solid on some things, but far from good overall. But I wouldn't pay any attention to what Half Sigma says- that guy is a stereotpyical whiny, grasping jew.
However, I do want to point out that much of the power of Feminism and Liberalism stem through the arm of government through tons of programs and mandates. Corporations plays a role too and is help by the government. Wouldn't a Ron Paul presidency hurt that by cutting that arm off? Thus inline with your aims? It might not grant you the ability to talk openly and find a champion, but it could start stemming the tide by cutting the government role.
That's exactly what I've been trying to say. Well said.
Ron Paul is Fool. There are No Fools like Old Fools!
Ron Paul may not like Joos, but he sure does like Gold! For enough Gold, I think he would like Joos too!
Paulbots don't think that Ronnie has a Price, but he does - like every good little Capitalist!
Enough $$$ and he'll be another Clintoon!
One can't be a libertarian and not be fundamentally liberal. For all Paul's economic conservatism (Vox Day essentially says this is all that matters at this point), he and the Rockwells and Craig Roberts merely substitute the usual liberal hatred for white man with their libertarian hatred for white man's government. But they are still fundamentally liberal by their own account and go soft on issues that will predictably increase the size of the government that they despise.
We will need a white man's government, no doubt. It cannot be an entirely liberated one as we have now. How a libertarian added to the mix will give us less liberalism in our government is quite the mystery?
The other problem with Paul is that you sense that he despises the average white man, but he also has no desire to be a genuine white Supremacist. It's hard to explain what this guy really is or is trying to be.
I believe this ideological loyalty has led him to harbor a slight animosity towards Jews, as he collectively blames Jews for their disproportionate membership amongst neocons and banksters.
Let's get serious here. If you're on the right however defined, then you should have some animus towards Jews, who are for all practical purposes the left.
Jews are universally despised. Personally, I hate Jews as much as the next guy.
Ron Paul might not hate Jews, but Jews hate him.
If you're a Gentile, vote Ron Paul. Jews hate him, and they hate you too.
HalfSigma has been beating the drum that Ron Paul really hates Jews.
It's much more accurate to say that Jews really hate Ron Paul. Through a fairly banal psychological mechanism this gets transposed in their minds into "Ron Paul really hates us!"
In reality what's going to happen is that either the current administration gets reelected, or we'll get a liberal quisling like Romney.
Romney strikes me as being much less of a liberal quisling than GWB or John McCain. Which still does not make him a conservative, admittedly, but he'd be better than we've done in the recent past.
Sailer:
Over the last millennium, something perhaps unique in world history occurred in Europe, especially in its northwestern quadrant (and, in later years, in its offshoots like America): a movement away from the fractiousness of clan and tribe, but without the usual congealment into despotism.
Actually there is still the fractiousness, and it was quite well demonstrated as late as WWII with its mass slaughter in Europe between different groups of whites, with the main white contenders operating under vicious despotisms.
Sailer:
white Americans don’t want to act like the rest of the world, as the white nationalists advise them to, they want to act like white Americans. They don’t want to submit their individual freedom to their extended families, they want to marry whom they want to marry and then focus on their nuclear families.
Of course. WHich is why the HBD project is ultimately bound to fail, although it will see some localized success on the fringes, and in short-term media. WHite Americans in large are not obsessed with a need for a regular societal "two minutes of hate" (shades of Orwell's 1984) against designated HBD villians - blacks, Jews etc, as desired by HBDers. They already realize that they hold the reins of power and wealth. And if worse comes to worse, they can always go the "mestizoization" route- like Brazil, a happy-clappy multicultural framework, but on top, whites are still firmly in control.
The HDB "two minutes of hate" project against blacks and other minorities will animate some fringes of white society, and generate some short-term attention via short-term media "incidents", but by in large, white America isn't obsessed with race like HBDers. In fact they want less race in their lives, because "race issues" can make white people look bad. Talking up the violence of minorities for example, naturally leads to reverse scrutiny of the white violence record, including the world's most vicious and hateful mass murders. The vicious record of Dachau or the gulags are merely one example of the overall white historial record.
Whites in general want to be known as good people. Race mongering, whatever its short term successes, generates numerous ugly feedback and ugly uncertainties. It is literally a minefield. It is not merely "media conditioning" involved. Most knowledgeable whites know that race mongering generates harsh two-way scrutiny across the board. It is supremely in the interests of most white Americans to not open that can of worms with continual race mongering. In fact shrewd whites realize that quiescent minorities enhance overall control and the white self-conception of goodness. Many advocates of "racialization" seem to assume the narrative will only go one way- noble, good white people, versus evil non-whites, but it won't. There is ugly, dirty white linen waiting in the hamper to expose, linen most white Americans would rather not wash in public.
This is another key reason why the HDB "Two Minutes of Hate" project against blacks and others will ultimately fail. The main concerns of white Americans are thus INTERNAL, the struggle against other factions and groups of white Americans, not the HDB project against "enemy" minorities.
by in large, white America isn't obsessed with race like HBDers.
Yea it's just a coincidence that if they have enough money to rush to form all-white (w/ token Asians) neighborhoods, schools, sports teams, marriages, and communities. And they don't really notice black dysfunction either - b/c it's not as if terms such as "bad neighborhood", "welfare queen", and "ghetto" have any connection to a particular race. (\sarcasm)
Talking up the violence of minorities for example, naturally leads to reverse scrutiny of the white violence record, including the world's most vicious and hateful mass murders. The vicious record of Dachau or the gulags are merely one example of the overall white historial record.
Yes, I always feel so unsafe around those soccer moms and suburban dads mowing the lawn. (FWIW: I already dealt with this - blacks and Hispanics haven't been able to commit genocide not b/c they're less evil, but because they can't organize themselves or have the proper technology and societal infrastructure to do so.)
The rest of your post comes straight outta Howard Zinn and other hate whitey literature. And if it weren't for those evil white people, you'd still be running around half naked with a spear in your hand, hoping not to get AIDS, have your sister gang raped, or get eaten by your African "brothas."
Too Tall Jones is the personification of the tragic mulatto: he has the faculties for keeping up with the white man's cognitive pace, while still being an African, belonging among them and loyal to them.
Unlike a dumb but simple black guy, he can't just be normal. He feels a compulsion to twist his brain into pretzels.
There is this meme that libertarianism is the white man's preferred style of government, despite there being no historical nation of libertarians (America has never had a free market, and neither has England). Sadly even Kevin McDonald buys into this.
The idea of liberty and equality being the natural system of white people is quintessentially Anglo-Saxon (as is the idea of 'white people'). It's mythology though. According to Anglo-Saxons in the late middle ages onward the Normans came and eradicated this fair and free Saxon-ruled utopia (which oddly doesn't seem to have existed in either Saxon-ruled province in Germania, that was never conquered by Normans or anyone else in this time period).
Nor is the system suited to homogenous environments. The more homogenous, and the more 'white' the country the higher trust and more socialistic it is. The biggest capitalistic style nation that have ever been run have been in America, where Jews (and once upon a time WASPs) ruled over various white ethnics (and lately other ethnics in general), but still not libertarian. The other notable one is Apartheid South Africa, where the English were left to their own devices to compete in a dog eat dog world to have their income taxed to be used to segregate and force the labor of blacks, and to pay subsidies to the Boer.
Libertarianism, capitalism in general is the 'Slaves Without Masters' system, which obviously isn't suited to NAMs who badly need masters to be productive or even just non-destructive.
The problem with Paul not winning and just 'pushing the window' is that his system is bad, and it's not suited to the kind of society that white people actually like to live in. It's bad because the likely result is Apartheid America (which we already have in part), where we'll have a libertarian 'utopia' for the white man and abundant super-abundant welfare and ample affirmative action set asides for everyone else.
Even if he wins he's not going to be successfully in dismantling the system wholesale and restructuring society. He'll be fought tooth and nail, and will receive a partial success, which is possibly worse than maintaining the status quo (depending on how it all played out).
It's possible that Libertarianism could function well in a homogenous white nation, but then again so would pretty much anything else. What failed in Venezuela would work in Germany, because it's full of Germans and not Venezuelans. That's the situation we have now. Our system works on the backs of white labor and ingenuity, and as the country gets less white even as the system remains relatively static, things fall apart.
As it stands the system we need is one that is explicitly separatist or supremacist. You aren't going to come up with a system that makes Jews not perfidious, Chinese cooperative with non-ethnics, or blacks not stupid and reckless.
Way too many WNs are into libertarianism. It's a total dead letter as far as realizing any goals good for white people. The envelope that needs to pushed is to get the racially conscious right off of libertarianism altogether.
"A Liberal Quisling like Romney" is the best we can do. I am realistic, "let it all burn" is not particularly attractive, I live in this country.
Paul ticks off ALL Jews because he rejects their big government social liberalism and rule by elites. Paul and Chomsky both hate Israel and want it abolished, so too Thomas Friedman. But Chomsky and Friedman (two prominent Jews, one hard-lunatic-left and the other a Technocratic elitist) as much as they share the hate for Israel of Paul, and blame all America's problems on Israel, differ with him on rule by a huge technocratic, connected, semi-hereditary elite.
Onestdv:
The rest of your post comes straight outta Howard Zinn and other hate whitey literature. And if it weren't for those evil white people,
I'll take a page from your own HBD book. The first line of HBDer defence when criticized is to say "Oh, but I am just telling the truth bout those evil minorities, look at the statistics."
Fine. And let's too look at the white historical record. How come its "hate whitey" to point out that whites are the most vicious mass murderers in history? It's a fact. You HBDers never tire of pointing to statistics about say black crime, and saying "I'm only relating the facts." How come now you are in a huff when the tables are turned? Looks like hypocrisy to me.
. And if it weren't for those evil white people, you'd still be running around half naked with a spear in your hand, hoping not to get AIDS, have your sister gang raped, or get eaten by your African "brothas
Oh dear, reaching for the standard "white meat" lines are we?
Then there are those durn Semites! I am sure Jews preferred the mass murder of your northern "civilization" to anything in Africa. How about your good white people injecting children with phenol to induce heart seizures, or electrocuting them in "experiments" before cremating their bodies? Go ahead and "brag" about your "proper technology and societal infrastructure"..
As for rape, white Russians did that pretty well above and beyond anyone, in World War II, to the tune of some 2 million German women, including young children.
And cannibalism has been well documented in Europe. Plenty of "equal opportunity" on that score.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9026/cannibalismineurope.jpg
"A Liberal Quisling like Romney" is the best we can do.
Not good enough, Whiskey. Under Bush, we were demoralized. I'm not talking about "red pill" alt-righters. I'm talking about average, intellignet Americans. Under O / Holder / Wright, we've been waking up.
And let's get real, the choice is between Obama, or someone who can stop him. I'm not in love with Romney (disclosure: I have cousins who are Mormons). He's better than GWB. A lot smarter. He's preferable than Obama.
PAUL is preferable to Obama. Obama is that BAD. Though Paul has 0% chance of ever winning over Obama, and less of getting the nomination.
Elections are won and lost based on turnout and White Professional Women. Who in turn have economic/structural reasons to vote the Dem alliance (what Sailer calls the anti-White guy alliance of Dems). Big government, more positions for them, more nanny state moral status mongering. But they buy groceries and gas like everyone else.
Romney is best situated to depress turnout among the young (by mobilizing the jobs issue) and take "enough" of this demo to add to Blue collar "waitress mom" voters and White male voters (who have left Obama). His ability to pose as a handsome, Alpha male with money and power who NEVER LOSES HIS COOL is critical for the White Professional women who WILL vote Republican if he's Alpha enough.
McCain lost that demo big time, he was too old and deferential. The key is tooling up Obama without doing it overtly, the stuff Roissy dissects daily and yes, works as well on that swing voter group which CAN in enough numbers vote Rep instead of Dem for President.
You can't have a candidate "too hot" (that means Newt, Palin, Santorum, Bachman, as well as Paul). A guy like Fred Thompson, would have perfect (before he got sick). He has to be tall, not too young or old, calm, "in control," and assertive but not someone who visibly sweats under the lights.
This says nothing about who his team will be (90% of governing) or his plans for governing or anything like that. But it is how we choose presidents, because it is the most easily digestible.
Too Tall -- Africans need not take a back seat to anyone in organized Genocide. Between April and the end of June, 1994, about 1 million Tutsis and "moderate" Hutus were slaughtered. Most by rocks bashing their heads in or machetes hacking them apart. Including babies, old men, old women, pregnant women, and so on. You had to pay to be shot, and die quicker. This was done, unlike the Holocaust, by neighbor against neighbor. Sometimes inside families. By way of comparison, Auschwitz, with modern industrial killing machines, slaughtered about 1 million people over four years, after being enlarged four times, between late 1940 and being over-run by the Red Army in Jan 1945. Auschwitz was run by a small, highly motivated cadre of killers, Rwandans did it because they just hated. Most Germans did not like Jews, but did not trouble themselves to physically slaughter them (I can understand the desire to keep living on why they did nothing).
As for Paul being Anti-Semitic, I can't know what he feels. His policy of dumping Israel gets us what exactly? Good will of Iran? Pakistan? Trust of other small nations that have entered into other alliances with America trading protection for bases?
Far from "kowtowing" to Israel, America has dictated from the start, as the more powerful and patron nation, the terms and conditions: withdrawal from Sinai in 1956, withdrawal from outside Cairo in the Yom Kippur War, trade of the Sinai in the accord with Egypt, withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza, and so on.
If we dump Israel, that's putting ALL our eggs into the Saudi basket, to project force in the Eastern Med and Persian Gulf. Since we unwisely gave away our Iraqi bases so vital and hard won. I've yet to see any payoff for that bet other than making Euroweenie leftists and frothing at the mouth Muslims happy for five seconds till they find their next grievance. That's a poor payoff.
Besides all the Left HATES HATES HATES Israel which is reason enough for me to remain allied with them.
As for Obama, another four years and ALL of California will be Spanish speaking only, with the rest of America finding out what its like to be a gringo in Mexico. I can't afford that. Paul is a fantasy, some magical talisman that will make it all right. I like King Arthur stories as much as the next man, but they are fantasy not reality.
True liberalism is conservative:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/true_liberalism_is_conservative
The Rev. Phillip G. Kayser endorses Ron Paul and says, "Under a Ron Paul Presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabD0Nucwa4
Rev. Kayser believes homosexuals should be executed.
The Paul campaign welcomed Rev. Kayser's endorsement, though it eventually removed a statement on its website welcoming the endorsement.
@too tall, none of that evil whitey stuff happened on a mass scale, and rape has always been condemnable in European and most other cultures to the point that it wasnt some endemic crisis
"Then there are those durn Semites! I am sure Jews preferred the mass murder of your northern "civilization" to anything in Africa. How about your good white people injecting children with phenol to induce heart seizures, or electrocuting them in "experiments" before cremating their bodies? Go ahead and "brag" about your "proper technology and societal infrastructure"..
As for rape, white Russians did that pretty well above and beyond anyone, in World War II, to the tune of some 2 million German women, including young children.
And cannibalism has been well documented in Europe. Plenty of "equal opportunity" on that score."
Exactly! White people are more organized, so we're better at genocide and at civilization. ;) Being organized makes you better at good and evil.
WHite Americans in large are not obsessed with a need for a regular societal "two minutes of hate" (shades of Orwell's 1984) against designated HBD villians - blacks, Jews etc, as desired by HBDers.
You skip right past the fact the blacks and Jews regularly engage in their own "two minutes of hate" against whites. Perhaps in your imaginary world the poor "minorities" are forever being beaten or murdered or exploited by the mean whites, but in the real world things work very differently.
I don't particularly like libertarianism, but if Paul wants to destroy an evil, anti-white institution like the federal government, let him. I don't care what his reasons are. Hell, if David Icke was going to defund the government because it's infested with space aliens, I'd vote for him.
As for Jews, why not apply the simple formula of diversity + proximity = conflict to them? Jews and Europeans have different goals in constructing society. Even if you throw out the whole Culture of Critique (and that's throwing out quite a bit!), there's still the fact that a great deal of elite Jews support American alliance with Israel. Even though supporting Israel gives us no benefit (they have, what, pomegranates? and no oil?), America continues with this foreign entanglement to our great detriment. To modify von Bismarck's remark, one day the next world war will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Middle East!
@too tall, none of that evil whitey stuff happened on a mass scale, and rape has always been condemnable in European and most other cultures to the point that it wasnt some endemic crisis.
Wrong. Systematic, deliberate mass murder on a gigantic scale to the tune of some 8-10 million people, (6 mil Jews, 4 mil miscellaneous uttermensch) happened in WWII. It was not war damage or collateral damage, but deliberate mass murder of people based on ethnicity.
And you say rape has always been commendable in European culture? Hmmm..... YOu'll have to expand on that one.
Exactly! White people are more organized, so we're better at genocide and at civilization. ;) Being organized makes you better at good and evil.
Hence many whites secretly approve of the Fuehrer's "cleansing" operations against Jews. What they dislike is the raw EXPOSURE of the business in its horrid detail. But "proper technology and societal infrastructure" will work wonders.
You skip right past the fact the blacks and Jews regularly engage in their own "two minutes of hate" against whites. Perhaps in your imaginary world the poor "minorities" are forever being beaten or murdered or exploited by the mean whites, but in the real world things work very differently.
I don't dispute your point that SOME Jews and blacks do this, particularly in the more radically "politically correct" areas of society. Sure. And most of these areas are dominated by whites by the way.
As said earlier, I do not doubt that HBD will see some success. I just don't see open race mongering as a long-term success strategy. Most whites reject such race mongering, as do most blacks by the way. It may be however that HBD might be poised for a measure of success in the current economic downturn. As finances grow more strained and desperate, the parties that can whip up racial resentments and hatreds will get some media attention and white support. Whether it is a workable long term strategy for a significant HBD cultural triumph is open to question.
While HBD makes blacks a special target for its "two minutes of hate" project, and can always generate short-term attention by demonizing blacks, its biggest enemy is not blacks, who make up a mere 11-12% of the population. The main opponent is other whites, particularly whites on the liberal end of the spectrum. Hence Jews are a continuing "problem.".
To the HBDer, those durn Jews are everywhere, making slashing, damaging criticisms and attacks on the Bund - a formidable barrier to the HBD project. Even the religion of most of todays' white people is not based on the old tribal gods of Europe, but on a religion brought to Europe by those swarthy, sub-tropical Semites from the Middle East. There are deep resentments against Jewish "mind share" over would be northern European pace setters. Ron Paul's alleged anti-Semitism thus will attract a measure of support among certain whites.
"Moreover, if you don't believe that states rights IS American culture, and local control of decision-making IS American culture, then you are a liberal, and neocon, full stop.
Paul is anti-collectivist as he believes that economic and personal freedom are axiomatic - that the power and the essence of a society and nation follows from that. to Paul, that freedom defines the United States - not an adherence to a certain culture, creed, or religion."
"Economic and personal freedom" and "states rights" - that's America, huh? No "apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet"? No southern hospitality and northern Yankees? No pre-colonial Ivy League colleges? No Bible belt football? No Paul Revere's midnight ride, Pilgrims landing at Plymouth rock, Washington's cherry tree or crossing the Delaware, or Franklin's kite? No Boston Tea Party, California Gold Rush, or Pony Express? No Whitman, Twain, Hemingway, or Fitzgerald? No Leave it to Beaver, the quiet suburbs, the close small towns of the Midwest?
I have no idea WTF you're on about here. You seem to be inventing a conflict. Is it because you don't like Paul or libertardians? Scratch that, I don't like Paul or libertardians, and I still think you're inventing a conflict. So, is it because you HATE Paul or libertardians?
Pummeling straw men is unbecoming.
The core, ur-problem with the Ron Paul Brigade is that their all-purpose remedy to all America's problems, ie strict constitutionalism and libertarianism in private and public life, was suited to a country that no longer exists.
In what way is it unsuited now?
In a diverse society it will only make things worse.
How?
Shouldn't you have answered these questions in your comment?
Half Sigma is trolling you hard.
Yes, well, "kidding around" by just turning up the Jewish Supremacy is about as funny as a truckload of dead babies. And a coy way to be a Jewish Supremacist cunt and say "just kidding!" later.
Hey, I know, maybe I should make some "just kidding" throw-em-all-in-ovens posts. We know HS will love it, because have such marvelous senses of humor.
Have whites ever successfully come together just in the name of whiteness? If so, when. If not, why does anyone think they will start now?
Segregation was good enough for me. Crack a book some time.
Talking up the violence of minorities for example, naturally leads to reverse scrutiny of the white violence record, including the world's most vicious and hateful mass murders. The vicious record of Dachau or the gulags are merely one example of the overall white historial record.
Emphasis on "record." As in, "minorities" don't keep them - they don't rise to that level of civilization.
So we know they be all peaceful n' shit.
Unlike a dumb but simple black guy, he can't just be normal. He feels a compulsion to twist his brain into pretzels.
I think the false premise here is that TT is cognitively equivalent to a White man. From that, you derive the error that he's twisting his brain into pretzels, which I think is projection; you'd have to twist your brain into pretzels.
I don't think having an IQ equivalent to a White man's is tantamount to cognitively equivalent. No more than I think a Jew with an IQ of 120 is cognitively equivalent to a White man with an IQ of 120. Their IQs are equivalent, and there the similarity ends. I've been watching the lawyerly orientation of Jews (and Blacks; the two are identical in their argumentativist nature) for far too long to believe in the equivalency of cognition or behavioral genetics between Whites and Jews/Blacks/South Asians.
Svigor says,
"I don't think having an IQ equivalent to a White man's is tantamount to cognitively equivalent. No more than I think a Jew with an IQ of 120 is cognitively equivalent to a White man with an IQ of 120. Their IQs are equivalent, and there the similarity ends. I've been watching the lawyerly orientation of Jews (and Blacks; the two are identical in their argumentativist nature) for far too long to believe in the equivalency of cognition or behavioral genetics between Whites and Jews/Blacks/South Asians."
Hmmm. Interesting, but I don't know if i'm understanding you here: are you saying that I.Q. or 'g' is what it is, but the racial differences are something else and always present and distinguishing if still ineffable?
In other words: what's hte cognitive distinction/difference if there's no difference in I.Q.?
I don't dispute your point that SOME Jews and blacks do this, particularly in the more radically "politically correct" areas of society.
That's mighty white of you.
I just don't see open race mongering as a long-term success strategy.
Depends on what you think "open race mongering" is. If whites thought and talked about race in the same fashion as blacks and Jews currently do, would that be "open race mongering" in your eyes? I think we both know the answer to that one.
What you probably meant to say is "I don't see whites talking about race as blacks do as being a long term success strategy for blacks".
To the HBDer, those durn Jews are everywhere, making slashing, damaging criticisms and attacks on the Bund
In other words, everything is a matter of perspective and there is no objective reality. Except when you claim that there is an objective reality - such as the mythical "two minutes of hate" against the poor put-upon blacks - then you flip back to believing in concrete and clear-cut facts.
You yourself assert that Jews are "liberal whites" who are the "main opponents" of ethnic thought among other whites. But if I say the exact same thing, well, clearly I think that those durn Jews are everywhere!
This is what makes discussion with people on the left impossible. In your minds the validity of a statement depends entirely on what you imagine to be the moral worth of the person making it. It's as if "2 + 2 = 4" was either true or false depending on whether you liked the person saying it.
In other words: what's hte cognitive distinction/difference if there's no difference in I.Q.?
I don't know how to quantify the answer, but the difference exists. I have the exact same IQ as my sister but we think in very different ways. And that's with two people who grew up in the same family.
Not everything which can be measured is of value, and not everything which is of value can be measured.
Chuck Rudd said…
“Have whites ever successfully come together just in the name of whiteness? If so, when. If not, why does anyone think they will start now?
Absolutely, although I think it was so obvious to White Americans and Europeans that they did not feel the need to address it 24/7/365. I’m sure that you are familiar with “The White Man’s Burden”? This was merely commonsense to an Englishman of the 19th century. Look at all the eugenic based movements. Look at National Socialism. And while Hitler was more pro-Germanic that pro-White, as far as he was concerned, there was no difference between Nordic/Germanic/White. He believed that the Slavic people were too mixed in their ancestry to be “pure” White. But most importantly, look at the Immigration and Naturalization Laws prior to WWII and look at the various States that defined citizenship. You say that you don’t see a pattern of White racial awareness? How could you not?
Until just a few decades ago, white Americans generally believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races had different temperaments and abilities and built different kinds of societies. They thought that only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they cherished. They therefore opposed non-white immigration, and many considered the presence of non-whites -- blacks, especially -- to be a burden. They strongly opposed miscegenation. For several hundred years, American social policy reflected a consensus on race that is the very opposite of today's orthodoxy.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/what_is_white_nationalism_a_reply_to_dean_malik.html#ixzz1i3TgwEUr
“The United States employed an explicitly pro-White immigration policy for the entirety of its two centuries of existence until the treasonous 1965 Immigration Act, which reversed this safeguard and subverted American immigration policy to discriminate against White Europeans in favor of non-White immigration. Prior to the 1965 Act, American immigration policy favored White European immigration to maintain the status quo of the American population. The behind-the-scenes architects of the 1965 Act realized that overwhelmingly non-White legal immigration would inevitably reduce the White American population over time. The political front men of the 1965 Act, such as Ted Kennedy, falsely assured the American public that the new immigration policy would not upset the racial balance of America. In 1965, America was approximately 89 percent White. Just a few generations later, America is around 65 percent White. In one more generation, White Americans will be a minority in their own country.:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/09/16/none-dare-call-it-white-genocide/
“Have whites ever successfully come together just in the name of whiteness? If so, when. If not, why does anyone think they will start now?
Whites of various ethnicities, nationalities and cultures have never had a reason to come together until now. The people who make this point appear to lose sight of this fact; history moves forward not backwards.
Basically, unprecedented circumstances are forcing Whites into new ways of thinking. Because of these circumstances, Whites will have to put aside their cultural differences and unite against their enemy (Jews) and their competitors (every other group). Or, in the alternative, they will have to accept marginalization, declining status and ultimately extinction.
Too Tall Jones:
Talking up the violence of minorities for example, naturally leads to reverse scrutiny of the white violence record, including the world's most vicious and hateful mass murders. The vicious record of Dachau or the gulags are merely one example of the overall white historial record.
The Chinese Communists (East Asians) own the top spot when it comes to 20th century industrial genocides, not White folks. White violence has been not entirely but largely fratricidal -- Whites killing other Whites. Whites have definitely each other in far larger numbers than they have killed other peoples.
The Chinese Communist body count was mainly warfare and internal political faction fighting. The Holocaust was of a totally different order as said before, systematic deliberate mass murder based on race or ethnicity, not just war damage or internal political violence. Such killing is a crime under international law, laws approved of by the US and drafted by European nations after WWII. That's why they prosecuted Nazis afterwards for crimes against humanity. It was not just the usual sack and pillage by conquerors, but murder on a massive scale not yet seen in history.
Funny that I criticize Paul for not celebrating white Christian America....
He's the ONLY Christian candidate. I can see where you might want more from him, but you still get more of a "celebration of White Christian America" from him than you get from anyone else.
Your hatred of Paul is a mystery. You have to forgive Mangan's commenters for speculating about its origins, since nothing you say about him makes any sense in view of your stated principles.
lol since when are libertarians blank slatists? Read rothbards essay on egalitarianism. Also, a libertarian wrote the bell curve
"Your hatred of Paul is a mystery."
It's not so mysterious. Ron Paul has, on several occasions, essentially said that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because we deserved it. One obviously doesn't want to support anybody who won't stand up for his country when it is attacked like that. This has nothing to do with neoconservatism or supporting our recent invasion spree. It is simple patriotism, without which a nation won't last very long. The fact that One might agree with Paul on a number of issues isn't enough to override that very glaring deficiency in Paul.
It's not so mysterious. Ron Paul has, on several occasions, essentially said that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because we deserved it.
Ridiculous. Paul says the government's policies were one reason for the attack, which is an indisputable fact acknowledged by none other than Osama bin Laden himself. If you think that's saying "we deserved it", you're irrational.
Paul says the government's policies were one reason for the attack, which is an indisputable fact acknowledged by none other than Osama bin Laden himself.
Exactly. If only we hadn't pursued policies that upset Osama bin Laden, he would never have attacked us. We brought it on ourselves. Thank you for confirming that, Ben.
One obviously doesn't want to support anybody who won't stand up for his country when it is attacked like that. This has nothing to do with neoconservatism or supporting our recent invasion spree. It is simple patriotism
No, it is simple-minded. If patriotism means defending the actions of your anti-white government no matter what then patriotism is moronic. One sounds like a patriotard.
If patriotism means defending the actions of your anti-white government no matter what then patriotism is moronic.
Correct. We must sympathize with jihadists in order to oppose affirmative action and illegal immigration. If only paleocons had balls as big Mohamed Atta's!
If only we hadn't pursued policies that upset Osama bin Laden, he would never have attacked us. We brought it on ourselves.
There obviously was a connection between the 9/11 attacks and America's foreign policy in the Middle East.
Michael Scheuer, the man who was head of the CIA unit tasked with tracking down Bin Laden; has said as much many times.
This doesn't mean the attacks were justified.
Where has Ron Paul ever said such a thing?
We must sympathize with jihadists
Ron Paul doesn't sympathize with jihadists.
What idiocy will you inflict on us next?
How about saying criticism of US foreign policy is "Anti-American".
"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
-Sun Tzu
A refusal to see the causal relationship between your actions and the reactions of other people is the surest sign of a pychopath.
This doesn't mean the reactions of other people are neccessarily justified or that you deserve the ill effects of their reactions.
Sometimes people engage in overreaction, but an overreaction is still a reaction.
and historically ignorant castigation of America for Islamic animosity
Islamic terrorism did proceed forth as a reaction to the foreign policy activity of America, Israel, etc.
Islamic piracy existed before Islamic terrorism, but died out as a meaningful threat long ago.
Islamic military conquest existed before Islamic terrorism, but died out as a meaningful threat long ago.
Islamic terrorism is a different animal.
I do think the best way we could deal with Islamic terrorism would be to deport all Muslims from the West; but none of the candidates other than Ron Paul want to do that either.
One of the great things about Ron Paul is that his non-interventionist foreign policy would be of profound value from the standpoint of preventing an untold amount of bloodshed in the Middle East, an untold amount of liberal social engineering in Europe, and an untold amount of dangerous sabre ratting toward Russia and China.
How are those not good things?
Your hatred of Paul is a mystery.
I think it's because One thinks protecting America's self-esteem is more important than protecting the American people from an out of control and anti-White government.
The other Republican candidates all support giving the government to intern Americans forever without trial.
But that's no big deal, O course, given that Michelle Bachmann sometimes crows about Christianty.
She'd do as much to re-Christianize America as George W. Bush did.
One big problem with Neocons is that their desire to bomb Muslims using the Federal Government pushes them into wanting to empower the Federal Government like there's no tommorow.
*The other Republican candidates all support giving the government the power to intern Americans forever without trial.
A refusal to see the causal relationship between your actions and the reactions of other people is the surest sign of a pychopath.
This doesn't mean the reactions of other people are neccessarily justified or that you deserve the ill effects of their reactions.
I've only seen Paul and his acolytes (libertarians in general) make the first statement without the excellent qualification you provide afterwards. In fact, it always seems like they actually disagree with your qualification, which is what sickens me.
I think it's because One thinks protecting America's self-esteem is more important than protecting the American people from an out of control and anti-White government.
You obviously don't read this site. And the two objectives aren't mutually exclusive anyway. In fact, I'd argue they should be sought simultaneously.
And the two objectives aren't mutually exclusive anyway.
Yes, but it's a question of priorities.
I put a higher priority on protecting the American people from an out of control and anti-White government than on protecting America's self-esteem, and this is the biggest reason I support Ron Paul in 2012.
I also think Americans would benefit from morally disassociating themslves from a highly reckless, hyper-leftist and morally objectionable foreign policy; even if it hurts their self-esteem a little to admit they've made serious mistakes in turns of what they've supported.
In fact, I'd argue they should be sought simultaneously.
The candidates who engage in patriotic rhetoric are blatantly insincere and completely uninterested in protecting the American people from an out of control and anti-White government.
Ron Paul may take criticism of his own nation too far in places, but it is of far more consequence that he is interested in protecting the American people from an out of control and anti-White government.
The possiblity that he may have this interest out of a sense of ideology as opposed to a sense of racial loyalty cannot be denied, but the interest is still real and of great potential value.
It also taps into White Americans' justified sense of grievance against the government.
*even if it hurts their self-esteem a little to admit they've made serious mistakes in terms of what they've supported.
Exactly. If only we hadn't pursued policies that upset Osama bin Laden, he would never have attacked us. We brought it on ourselves. Thank you for confirming that, Ben.
You're an insufferable idiot. "WE" had nothing to do with it. "WE" didn't bring anything on ourselves, and "WE" didn't deserve to be attacked.
"WE" had nothing to do with it. "WE" didn't bring anything on ourselves, and "WE" didn't deserve to be attacked.
But we pursued policies that upset bin Laden. According to you and Paul, if we hadn't done that, we wouldn't have been attacked. So we brought it on ourselves, according to you and Paul. From now on, we should do as you and Paul suggest and never, ever do anything that might upset Muslim terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic
The Chinese Communist body count was mainly warfare and internal political faction fighting. The Holocaust was of a totally different order as said before, systematic deliberate mass murder based on race or ethnicity, not just war damage or internal political violence.
Really? Want to break down how all of the Chinese factions broke down along ethnic lines to prove that all of the factions "Looked like China"?
Fucking idiotic.
Might want to look up the Bavarian Soviet Republic as well. For things being so different in China than in Germany they look really, really similar upon closer inspection.
Of course 'closer inspection' is apparently antisemitic so we don't do that. That virtually every German Communist was a Jew, and had the backing of non-Communist Jewish industrialists and Academia, and that those Communist upon taking power killed thousands and thousands of ethnically German, Christian civilians isn't to be noticed or mentioned.
I also don't think this is 'picking a fight', Svigor. Ostensibly pro-white peoples adherence to Libertarianism as a panacea is a huge problem. Rearranging society to give more social power to those who control global finance and have accumulated most of the world's wealth is not any kind of pro-white cause any sane person could get behind, yet Libertarianism is probably the biggest political camp among the pro-white population of the US.
Really? Want to break down how all of the Chinese factions broke down along ethnic lines to prove that all of the factions "Looked like China"?
Do you know something we don't, Kyle?
Sailer links to an interesting article viz Ron Paul's foreign policy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/us/politics/pauls-foreign-policy-stance-divides-many-gop-voters.html?_r=1&hp
What Sailer doesn't note is that it seems that the majority of Republican voters opposed to ongoing wars, and only consider war if their own nation is directly affected, are serving members of the military or returned veterans.
The majority of Republican voters who are most pro war for Israel, above and beyond any national American interest, are non-serving or non-veterans.
Also interesting is that Americans mean by "foreign policy" plans to make or not make war. There seems no other context for "foreign policy".
Just so, one is either a hawk or dove on foreign policy:
The emerging question is to what extent Mr. Paul’s more dovish stances — like ruling out pre-emptive strikes against Iran...
Not bombing the shit out of a nation on some vague evidence, none of which has any impact on oneself directly, and only vaguely indirectly, is considered "dovish" in the USA.
Might I humbly suggest that foreign policy need not be, and should not be, strictly confined to whether one does or doesn't kill foreigners?
One for the Judeo-Yanks to think about.
I liked Pat better when he drunkenly raved about how he wishes death to America and the Jews.
Isn't tongue in cheek commentary allowed, as opposed to tongue in arse cheeks?
Tongue in cheek is fine, but as other commenters have noticed, you've seriously supported those ideas. Having comments like that makes this look like a crazy person site. I don't mind critical discussion of Jews, but using phrases like "death to..." is surely not in line with the type of discussion I will allow.
It's also telling that because some object to phrases like "death to...", that must mean those same people are waving Israeli flags (and good god do you know a lot about Jews/Israel - I had to look up what Haifa was). Some people really are neutral and care little either way.
Oh and here's one of your favorite targets Auster arguing why a large Jewish population undermines conservative Christian America:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021339.html#stan
Well, can I just say that I'm in thrall to Chaim Levine's vanity cards?
I was mocking the absurd polarity of all debate that comes out of the USA and the idiotic reactions to it, like effigy burning in the mid-east.
Haifa is where Blogger is administered, you need to know this lest you violate your Blogger terms and conditions.
Seriously supported what ideas, death to Judeo-America? Of course I do, as I said, I'm loyal to me and mine. In any case you don't acknowledge that Judeo-America exists. For you it is a figment of paranoid imaginations. In which case, if I say "Death to Judeo-America" then I'm merely jousting at windmills. This shouldn't be a threat. You cannot threaten a fiction, like you can't defame a pseudonym.
Unless of course you do identify Judeo-America as real and something you align yourself with, in which case, I understand why you delete my comments in that regard (as witty as they are :-)
All the world's a stage OneSTDV, and we are merely players, "And one man in his time plays many parts".
I'll check out the latest from Auster. Thanks for that.
Oh, yeah, I did read that from Auster. It's quite interesting and I haven't made my mind up on it as yet.
I admire Auster for his patriotic defence of his kith and kin, even going so far as to gently let them in on a few facts that elude them. I wish that we Whites would act with similar patriotism.
I also admire to the point of being in awe, how Auster is able to balance all these conflicting imperatives without completely melting down. Patriotically Jewish, affirmed High Church Anglican, lover of the West, fervently American-American, staunchly opposed to gentile critiques of Jews and Judaism. I have pondered this and conclude that this fine balancing act must contribute to his analytical ability. It is why he is able to precisely stake out a position and argue it in depth, yet always prone to emotional collapse at the contradictory and competing principles he identifies with.
Life would be so much simpler for him were he to pick a side. But, that's the way Judeo-America is - internally conflicted and projects this confusion outward to the world in rage.
Never used to be that way. Before the arrival of all those Jewish free thinkers.
Oh well, back to Big Bang Theory. Best to not think about these things.
If you're interested, here's one of Chaim's vanity cards: #327 http://www.chucklorre.com/index-mnm.php?p=327
It begins:
I'm writing this vanity card in Israel. I like it here. Not for the geography, or architecture, or even the history. No, I like it because for the first time in my life I'm surrounded with DNA much like my own. Until I got here, until I wandered around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, I didn't realize how much my double helix yearned to be around similar strands.
Does your double helix yearn to be around similar strands OneSTDV?
Do you feel a moral guilt for saying so? Especially should you for a moment consider that your double helix is not the same as a Jew's? Would you love to have a place of your own where "The cop, the cab driver, the hotel concierge, the pilot, the waiter, the shoe salesman, the beautiful girl looking right through [you] as if [you] didn't exist --..." were all White?!
Chaim's not ashamed to say so, so why are you? What is it that allows him to dictate your social conscience and allegiances in daily indoctrination via film and TV, none of which you will allow yourself to even consider for a moment?
To identify with you and yours is not anti-anyone, it is to be pro-you! Pro-us, OneSTDV. Come to the dark side One, it's really not so dark at all. Let your love grow and foster a hatred that is good, right and proper. Join us and we shall rule the West once again, as we were born and destined. Turn away from the rebel alliance. They are a mockery of us and merely an orgy of venality. Come to the Empire, lets us be as One.
Sorry, that should have been "let us be as One".
Though the original is rather Yoda like.
Chaim's not ashamed to say so, so why are you? What is it that allows him to dictate your social conscience and allegiances in daily indoctrination via film and TV, none of which you will allow yourself to even consider for a moment?
You attribute so many ideas to me that I've never supported. I support Chaim's right to be amongst other Jews. I also support the right of Germans to be amongst other Germans. Same for the Japanese and the Mexicans. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as it's grounded upon "I just like other people who look and act and have the same background as I do" NOT "fuck everyone else, I HATE all of you".
And if there are white Christian Americans who want to create social spaces just for white Christian Americans I have no problem with that. Same with Jews (though Jews don't seem to bashful about doing this already). People should be able to associate with whomever they like and as long as there's nothing hateful about it, I don't have a problem.
As for "Judeo-America", if you continue using that phrase reeking of paranoia (and rather obvious disdain for America as a whole), I will delete your comments.
Judeo-America is a fairly humorous application of the judeo-western motif.
"rather obvious disdain for America as a whole" whaaaat?!
If I had disdain for "America as a whole" I wouldn't use the term Judeo-America. I'd just say America.
Jaysus, how many times must I get down on my knees and extol the virtues of Old-America, Buchanan-America, founding-stock-America? I've done it enough my mouth is hurting. I like that America, I love that America, shining light on the hill America.
But that other America, the unhuman hybrid monster that I dare not speak its name America? That I despise.
Anyway, pax nobiscum brother. I will be waiting in the Death Star should you change your mind and return to the fold.
Michele Bachmann:
“When the United States embraces the animating principles of exceptionalism, those principles include limited government, self reliance, the rule of law, love of liberty, avoiding suffocating debt, in other words, when we abide by our Judeo-Christian principles, then we succeed,” Bachmann said. (emphasis mine)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/08/8705588-bachmann-gives-faith-heavy-economic-speech
Rick Perry:
"Somebody's values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States in going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell ya, it needs to be our values -- values and virtues that this country was based upon by the Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers."
(emphasis mine)
http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153141/at_religious_right_forum,_gop_candidates_weep_and_proselytize?page=3
Newt Gingrich:
Garlow has been backing Gingrich for the last few years and has served on the board of one of Gingrich nonprofit organizations, Renewing American Leadership, dedicated to "preserving America's Judeo-Christian heritage." (emphasis mine)
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/19/news/la-pn-gingrich-iowa-evangelicals-20111219
If you have a problem with the term "Judeo-America" OneSTDV, maybe you should write your GOP leadership and tell them to stop referring to your nation as such.
Why take it out on me? I'm just listening and repeating what I hear. Geez, no wonder the Arabs get confused with your foreign policy.
Pat Hannagan said...
If I had disdain for "America as a whole" I wouldn't use the term Judeo-America. I'd just say America.
Jaysus, how many times must I get down on my knees and extol the virtues of Old-America....
Hmmm...
Pat Hannagan said...
You are an American. The disease that blights us all and the sooner you are eradicated the better we’ll all be. [...] you fuckers can suck the ethnic cock you want as far as I care. America was, it is no more. I hope all the good ones escape and everyone of you leftover filthy pricks burn for all the wars you cunts have imposed on us.
For Serbia, for Dresden, for Tokyo, for the Mid East I hope that my White American friends escape and the rest of you self satisfied rear end growlers suffer the fate that you deserve and your cities burn brighter and longer than any of the cities that your once nation burned. [...]
But the way you have gone you have become the bastion of evil which you dress up in USA ra ra hype and fuck up everything you touch. Because you only understand violence. And sex. That’s the American way. I know more about you than you me. If you heard me speak you wouldn’t understand a word I spoke even though it is english. But I understand you. I hear you in my TV, in my movies, in my radio and watch you destroy nation after nation.
You are bad news. See a Yank coming run a mile. Big mouthed, full of know nothing knowledge and telling everyone how the world works. Cause you have people like IHTG that have subordinated your culture to his ways. You work for Isreal and suck the soul out of everyone else.
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/
2011/04/08/a-brief-history-of
-tribalism/
That's just a small sample. There's lots more of that sort of stuff from Pat spewed all over the internet.
The hits just keep coming ha ha. Excellent stuff hey anon, though it was streams of consciousness at the time and needs some editorial work.
For instance, in the morning - if I had editorial control - I'd rephrase "American" as "Judeo-American", Yank as "Judeo-Yank" so on and so forth.
Plenty of my writing elsewhere that demonstrates my turn of phrase. And yes, please republish more. I'd forgotten that one and hadn't saved it, as I've learned to do since when commenting. I'd very much like to get that work up on my blog and your efficiency and dedication not only warms my heart, it saves me much time.
In any case, what bug got up your arse anon? I bring you insight into your dilemma and all you want to do is re-hash some comment from yonks ago where the phraseology wasn't choice.
Matter of fact, when OneSTDV refers to "but as other commenters have noticed, " it's really only you, the great brave anonymous who always barfs up this little comment that has irked you to your core. I'm glad it did.
But hey, let's not let your obsessions get the best of us. What did you make of those quotes from Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich? Did you wish your family and friends a Merry Judeo-Christmas this season? Cause ya did, Juden-Yank.
Not a very convincing attempt to laugh it off, Pat. Too wordy, and your tone is uneven.
What would you give it out of 10?
So, as I say, what do you think of Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich's term of Judeo-Christianity? Do you have anything substantial you'd like to add? The floor is yours, take it away. I'm ready.
OneSTDV is probably asleep so we have some time before the deletions begin.
So far I think Pat has had the best of this head-to-head.
I gave his reply 4 and half stars out of 5.
Thank you for your kind words of support anonymous and totally impartial bystander. They mean a lot to me especially coming from an anonymous and totally impartial bystander.
Well, I was going to crack open a stubby and settle in for a night of blog debate, but it all seems to have been quite the fizzler.
The mrs has offered a foot massage so I'll take that instead. Hopefully anonymous will be back soon to expand upon Judeo-Christianity and all that is Judeo-America.
what do you think of Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich's term of Judeo-Christianity?
It's simple pandering to evangelical Christians, who are extremely supportive of Israel. It's not as if Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich think they're going to win the Jewish vote (which is only 2% of the total, anyway). Judeo-Christian is a shorthand way of saying they support Israel against its enemies. Is that really too difficult for you to grasp, Pat? Evangelicals support Israel not because they really love Jews (they often dislike them personally) but because evangelical theology says that the Rapture etc. doesn't happen until all Jews return to their historical homeland. This is a good example of why you should not let theological doctrine dictate your politics (advice that is probably wasted on you).
It's simple pandering to evangelical Christians,
No, I think you have the wrong. It's simple pandering to Jews. Who disrespect them for it. My own Catholic Cardinal now refers to "our Judeo-Christian heritage" so it isn't an evangelical thing, though the infection has obviously spread.
Your Catholic cardinal desperately wants to avoid the taint of anti-Semitism. The Church didn't exactly cover itself in glory in WWII, so it's going to bend over backwards (pun intended) to make sure people don't think the Church wants a repeat of Auschwitz. Interestingly, you don't often hear Episcopalian ministers gush on and on about how much they love Judaism. In fact, they often take up the Palestinian cause. Maybe you should switch religions.
What, switch to yours?
I note it is currently 12:24 am in New York and 9:24pm in California Anonymous. What time zone do your write from?
Switch to Episcopalian, of course. At least for year or two, when you finally transition to the TRUE religion. It's 4:56AM right now.
Thanks for the tip Anonymous. You dropped off last night not long from now. Either you're an early riser, or very late to bed.
Why don't you just spit out, like Jeremiah with hot coals in his mouth, what you want to say rather than speak in tongues?
St Paul said that the truth shall set you free, and that you should test yourself with fire, so fire away and tell me what you feel I need to hear since you think I've got it so wrong?
I'll be like the fire. And test you.
You already know in your heart. When your balls are big enough, you will follow your heart and join the only true faith, the one that will test YOU by fire. Of course, at your advanced age, maybe you shouldn't expect your balls to grow, especially after the testosterone-lowering ravages of your life-long alcoholism.
lol ("genuine lol", for your sake).
Just spit it out. What flakey, fagotted religion do you observe xtian heathen?
References to my nut sack, the length of my cock (as impressive as it is) will not dissuade me from the fire of truth.
What lame brained disgorged of race religion would you like me to join and, simply, argue for?
Episcopalian hey Anon? That's an American term for Anglican, yes?
I watched a doco today called The Seven Ages of Britain (check it out). It detailed in art how Henry VIII supplanted himself as God, in his bible that he mass produced on printing presses. The in-cover detailed himself handing it down to Lords, who handed it to priests, and on to the commoner, with Henry himself as centre piece.
Henry had his men destroy all the Catholic Churches, destroyed your art and archeology, and whitewashed all your churches. With the Tudor coat of arms in the place where the crucified Christ once stood.
And, this is your religion?
From wikipedia "The Episcopal Church ordains women to the priesthood as well as the diaconate and the episcopate. The current Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first female primate in the Anglican Communion."
Pfffft.
And you dare refer to my balls? You are not even fit to lick them.
Dropped off again have we Anonymous? You put yourself in the English timezone yet you use the term Episcopalian, speak with an evangelical American styled fervour, and disappear not long after 1am New York time.
You also mention the "Rapture" capitalised. I'm learning much about you Anonymous.
Maybe you use a z instead of s. Yes?
@ Pat:
OK, thanks. You're done now.
Right so, OneSTDV. You're up late mate.
Seriously One, I do quite like you. I'm not concerned with whether or not you're a Jew, the point is not so important. Your arguments are better. And in that regard I wish you the best, and will say that I have enjoyed your consistent and erudite postings of late.
We share a common concern for our kind. Take it easy brother, may the road rise with you. I look forward to your next post in about 4 hours.
Sorry if I overstepped the mark today OneSTDV. It's the first day of the Sydney Test, against India.
It's been up, up and then down. The sorta up. Imagine baseball played over 5 days and you will understand. I know you like sport, one of the things that I like about you, so you will understand.
And you dare refer to my balls? You are not even fit to lick them.
Nor would I want to. Baby steps, Pat, baby steps. First you've got to leave your Jew-loving Church. Episcopalianism is an easy step for you. After all, you already grovel before the Virgin Mary, don't you? What's a little bit of dyke priestess to you, then? Is it really any worse than a Church run by elderly gay virgin males? Later, when your testicles finally drop, you can begin to move, slowly, tentatively, to where you know you belong.
I know you've got fond memories of your days as an altar boy, when funny old Father O'Malley would give you a little extra communion wine after the services and let you rummage in his trouser pockets for loose change, but it is time to put away childish things, Pat.
Good morning anonymous, have a good sleep did we?
I bet I know what you were dreaming of, some bacha bazi mazari:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtMmBKFU6co&feature=related
After all, that's why we fight isn't it. For democracy, Israel, and the right for men to have sex with boys.
Ha ha, you episcopalians crack me up. Wakey, wakey, hands off snakey, just like your nanna used to say.
Ha ha, you episcopalians crack me up.
Once we have weaned you off Father O'Malley's tipple, we have got to work on your reading comprehension. I am suggesting Episcopalianism only as a transitional stage. I know you aren't ready to make the big leap to the TRUE religion, but you might manage it by baby steps. The Episcopalian church allows a lot more criticism of your nemesis Israel. Start from there and then move inchingly forward to the light. But it doesn't have to be Episcopalianism if you object so strenuously to it. Choose any sect that is less prostrating to your nemesis than your pozzed Mother Church.
Well I'm now thoroughly confused as to what you want of me. First you were raving about the Catholic Church and her role in Auschwitz, now you're telling me we grovel to Jews and Israel.
Which, who, what?
Bishop Williamson of the SSPX is a case in point. Your tribe wants our tribe to excommunicate him. Amazing that another religion should demand how we administer our own religion.
Williamson is the dread "denier" of that most sacrosanct articles of faith, that can condemn a man to the fires of hell for all eternity.
Look him up Anonymous. And when you get your head right, just state which or what religion I should convert to, not transition.
First you were raving about the Catholic Church and her role in Auschwitz, now you're telling me we grovel to Jews and Israel.
*sigh* I've already explained this, Pat. Your Holy Mother Church is so stricken with guilt over its behaviour during WWII that it has turned beta through constant nagging. Now it is thoroughly whipped and will do ANYTHING to make amends. Time to abandon ship, Pat...if you have any common sense and testicular fortitude left in your besotted brain and bloated carcass.
Amazing that another religion should demand how we administer our own religion.
Sounds pretty fucking alpha to me. Why do you want to remain in a hen-pecked religion, Pat?
I thought you were going to post more of my comments ya slack bastard. Now get to work and do something useful. Get me those links!
I'm not going to hold your hand, Pat. If you won't follow the wisdom of your own heart and do what you know deep down you need to do...well, I can't save you. You're the one who will have to live with the burning shame of it. And of course you will pay for your moral & physical cowardice in the afterlife for all eternity, you beer-sodden Australian buffoon (redundant, I know). You're the Christopher Hitchens of Catholic WNs.
If you won't follow the wisdom of your own heart and do what you know deep down you need to do...
But I am! That's why I'm a Catholic, beer drinking bastard, and father who gets great enjoyment out of riling Jewish hypocrites such as yourself.
Nighty night Anonymous. Have a good sleep now.
OK, thread is over.
great enjoyment out of riling Jewish hypocrites such as yourself.
LOL. You haven't got a clue, have you, you alcoholic buffoon? Be sure to check under your bed every night, Pat, to make sure there aren't any Jews there waiting to poison you in your sleep.
OK, I'm done here, One.
I gave that comment 1 star out of 5. 1 for having the chutzpah to comment again.
Good night fairy princess.
I watched an episode of Breaking Bad last night. There is this scumbag lawyer who has a Jewish last name. I was surprised that Hollywood was being so honest. They didn't let me down, though. He told someone he is really an Irishman, and just uses the Jewish last name, since people prefer Jewish lawyers.
@Lara
I love that show/character, though the story got a bit weak toward the end of the season.
That Odenkirk guy, the SNL writer who plays the lawyer, is a great character, but he somewhat throws the part away by always playing it so over-the-top IMHO.
Post a Comment