← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 11427 | Posts: 34 | Started: 2003-12-10
2003-12-10 08:05 | User Profile
[url=http://www.antiwar.com/pat/pat4.html]Here We Go Again[/url]
by Pat Buchanan December 10, 2003
A close read of President Bush's November addresses at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington and at the Whitehall Palace in London leads a traditionalist almost to despair.
George Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became president. Who is putting these words in his mouth? For if George Bush truly intends to lead a "global democratic revolution," and convert not only Iraq but the whole Middle East to democracy, he has ceased to be a conservative and we are headed for endless conflicts, disappointments, disillusionment and tragedy.
At London, he called a "commitment to the global expansion of democracy" both "the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror" and "the third pillar of our security." But before he wagers our security on a crusade for democracy, Bush should ask the hard questions no one seems to have asked before he invaded Iraq.
Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments? Can he truly believe that by hectoring such autocracies as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, America is more secure? Who comes to power if Mubarak goes in Cairo, the Saudi monarchy falls, or Musharaff is ousted in Pakistan? If memory serves, the last wave of popular revolutions in the region gave us Nasser, Khadafi, Saddam and the Ayatollah.
With $200 billion sunk into democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, how many more wars does Bush think Americans will support before they decide to throw the interventionist Republicans out?
Where did he get the idea we are insecure because the Islamic world is not democratic? The Islamic world has never been democratic. Yet, before we intervened massively there, our last threat came from Barbary pirates. Lest we forget, Muhammad Atta and his comrades did not plot their atrocities in the Sunni Triangle, but in Hamburg and Delray Beach.
Surveys shows that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel. Interventionism is not America's solution, it is America's problem.
It was our earlier intervention in the Gulf War and our huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11. They were over here because we were over there.
If one-man, one-vote comes to Pakistan, what do we do if that nuclear nation supports a return of the Taliban? What do we do if the Iraqi regime that takes power after free elections tells us to pack up and get out, and declares the liberation of Kuwait and its return to the embrace of the motherland to be as vital to Baghdad as the return of Taiwan is to Beijing?
Freedom, the president said, "must be chosen and defended by those who choose it." Exactly. Why not then let these Islamic peoples choose it on their own timetable and defend it themselves?
It is "cultural condescension," says Bush, "to assume the Middle East cannot be converted to democracy. ... Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking."
But if 22 of 22 Arab states are non-democratic, this would seem to suggest that this soil is not particularly conducive to growing the kind of democracies we raise in upper New England. This may be mulish thinking to the progressives at NED, but it may also be common sense.
What support is there in history for the view that as we meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, we advance our security? How would we have responded in the 19th century if Britain had declared a policy of destabilizing the American Union until Andrew Jackson abolished slavery?
"Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity and the best hope for progress here on earth." Is it? Before democracy became our god, we used to believe that salvation was Heaven's plan for humanity, and Jesus Christ was the way, the truth and the life.
The neocons have made democracy a god, but why is George W. Bush falling down and worshiping their golden calf?
The last time we heard rhetoric like Bush's at NED and Whitehall Castle was the last time we were bogged down in a war. LBJ declared that America's goal was far loftier than saving South Vietnam. We were going to build a "Great Society on the Mekong."
Like Woodrow Wilson, Bush has been converted to the belief that democracy is the cure for mankind's ills. But our Founding Fathers did not even believe in democracy. They thought they were creating a republic - a republic that would be secure by remaining free of the wars of the blood-soaked continent their fathers had left behind. How wrong they were.
COPYRIGHT 2003 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
2003-12-10 09:39 | User Profile
Godless Rotarian's and Christian Zionist's are the front line as cannon fodder for protecting the treason gangsters in charge. What a mess.... I don't like pukecannon, nor trust him at all, but this article is on target, yes it is.. One problem is the Faith that men in the Zionist Churches have in Mr.Twig, I have a friend who is a Nazerene church member, and he has a complete blind faith in Twig, and won't read any details or news out side of media/talk zionist talk radio. I don't blame him or other's in these treason race traitor churches, I once again blame the leaders of these Apostasy/treason churches, especially the Catholic pro-invasion, anti white Church. As I was raised in that twisted mess, I will say it is rotten to the core, but my Mother was a Southern Baptist though, and they are almost as bad today, as the Cats.. The majority will always be willfully igorant.. Remeber the Maine was contrived as was Dec.7, 1941, and yes, that is yesterday, and it's NOT important at all that most don't want to believe FDR was treason criminal who planned Dec.7, as we are here now, and now is what we have to deal with and move forward.
2003-12-10 21:17 | User Profile
It is "cultural condescension," says Bush, "to assume the Middle East cannot be converted to democracy. ... Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking." Yes, Mr. Bush, "we" certainly could stand to change "our" own thinking. Let's start by remembering that a country like the US has no business trying to "free" other nations when it is not even a free country itself. It was meant to be free, but it isn't -- not by a loooong shot.
I think the Islamic world is unlikely to accept freedom -- either true freedom or American-style ersatz freedom -- in the foreseeable future, as Muslim religious traditions seem to contain a kind of implicit hostility to self-government. Muslims expect to be ruled by other Muslims. Not being a Muslim, I could be mistaken about that, but it's my general impression. And if it's correct, then it's perhaps the ultimate reason why the US needs to quit meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world. Such meddling is doomed to failure.
Of course, the true reasons why we're sticking our nose into the Middle East has nothing to do with any big-hearted desire on the part of the US to bring freedom to foreign nations. If the US government cared so much about freedom, it would at least respect the Constitutional rights of US citizens. No, the true reason why the US is putzing around in the Middle East is because the US is an Israeli/Zionist puppet regime. Lobbying, voting, and legal challenges in court will not change this. The world will only be safe from Jewish nuclear domination after a sufficient number of US citizens rise up in arms, guerrilla-style, and force the US government to quit screwing with Americans' Constitutional rights and with the rest of the world.
"Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity and the best hope for progress here on earth." Is it?
Although Bush is FOS when he uses statements like the above, the answer to Buchanan's question is actually YES. I believe that Liberty IS the plan of heaven for humanity, or at least a major part of it. If it weren't, then God wouldn't have given mankind free will. What merit is there in doing the right thing if you have no other choice? (This is also why I tend to doubt the existence of hell -- the one who believes in it essentially has had his free will taken from him and replaced with obedience borne of fear.) If Christ wanted earthly authorities to judge peoples' morals, then perhaps Mr. Buchanan can explain to me why Christ stopped that crowd from stoning that woman who had been caught committing adultery -- one of the most serious sins. Maybe -- just maybe -- Christ thought that only God has the right to hold human beings to account for their violations of divine law. The only time the government has any business stepping into the picture is when nonconsensual harm of one person by another is taking place. Any enforcement of morality beyond that is pure self-righteousness of the sort that obviously disgusted Christ.
Before democracy became our god, we used to believe that salvation was Heaven's plan for humanity, and Jesus Christ was the way, the truth and the life. Although I happen to be a Christian -- albeit one who's skeptical of many established Christian dogmas -- I must call BS on Pat here. He sounds as though he's implying that America was founded as a Christian nation, which is obviously false. To my knowledge, not a single reference to the Bible or to Christ can be in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. Most of the key Founders of the US were Deists. That doesn't mean that Christianity should be driven underground, however. Christians of all denominations have every right to practice their faith in private or in public, Jewish complaints notwithstanding. If I want to put a Nativity scene on my front lawn, I have every right to do so.
2003-12-11 01:55 | User Profile
George Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became president. **Who is putting these words in his mouth? **
Who? Uhhhmm, let's see.....uhhhh......Baptists! No, uhhhh... Catholics! :blink:
2004-01-06 02:22 | User Profile
Thanks for this article, which I missed. One of the points made here, that America was formed to be a Republic, not an Empire, is also the title of one of Pat's books.
2004-01-06 06:23 | User Profile
Someone should tell Pat that the big secret isn't a big secret any more and that he can drop the coded language. Not that he'd have the manhood to do it. I wonder how many boot-lickin' apologies he'll make to his rabbi for this one.
2004-01-06 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Someone should tell Pat that the big secret isn't a big secret any more and that he can drop the coded language. Not that he'd have the manhood to do it. I wonder how many boot-lickin' apologies he'll make to his rabbi for this one.[/QUOTE]
Go get 'em Ruffin, and give us a head's up when your op-ed pieces are due to be published on Creator's and Antiwar.
2004-01-06 12:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Someone should tell Pat that the big secret isn't a big secret any more and that he can drop the coded language. Not that he'd have the manhood to do it. I wonder how many boot-lickin' apologies he'll make to his rabbi for this one.[/QUOTE]
Ruffin,
I doubt if he will make any. He doesn't have to. You can make all the snide comments about Buchanan you want, but it doesn't change the fact that people like Buchanan and Francis have done more to bring about an awareness of the evil designs of the neo-cons than anyone else that I can think of. I don't recall seeing even a footnote to your heros in Frum's hit piece, Unpatriotic Conservatives. That is not to say they don't contribute anything, I happen to think they do, however, Buchanan, ect. get alot more exposure and what they encourage people to think about will take an intelligent person to the logical conclusion.
To hell with those sites Tex mentions. I think you can do better. When's your debut appearance on Meet the Press? I look forward to seeing you and by God, you will explain everything.
2004-01-06 17:13 | User Profile
Personally, I never paid Buchanan any attention until I started reading Sam Francis. Through that I found Vdare.com, and the person whom I agree with more than any other: Mr. Brimelow.
Ironically, Mr. Ruffin didn't lead me to O.D. Francis et al did. At any rate, I think that the USA basically HAS to be everywhere now.
Who wants the North Koreans or the Saudi's having Nukes? As anti-imperialist as I am, I think the NEOCONS are somewhat right about the Nuke threat. You can't "kick the beehive", I agree, but nothing scares asshole dicators more than removing them from their thrones. And that's what we just did.
I'm fairly mixed on this stuff, the more I think about it. Does that make me a bad person? I think not
-Jay
2004-01-06 18:10 | User Profile
TD, Sert, I know you're both familiar with Pat's backtracking and condemnation of "racists" and "anti-semites". But that's not what makes him worthless. What makes him a beanie baby is the thing that leads him to these contradictions.... his loyalty, above all else, to the United States government (you know what the original authors said about this, don't you?). It's what has undermined and eventually silenced all conservative efforts for the last century, because it's a sham. "A Republic, Not an Empire" hasn't been the case in his lifetime, but all of his efforts are directed at exposing 'distortions' of his beloved Constitution. He'll be singing 'God Bless America' when an American Mugabe moves him off of his property and kills his family for not liking it.
Jewish power is no longer a secret, except among American liberal idiots and American conservative cowards. Pat will hem and haw and continue to 'represent' conservative America in the dominant media, for that reason. Francis is no better. He has already been exiled, and still isn't forthright.
Go ahead, turn on the messenger. It's what conservatives do best.
2004-01-06 18:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Who wants the North Koreans or the Saudi's having Nukes? As anti-imperialist as I am, I think the NEOCONS are somewhat right about the Nuke threat. You can't "kick the beehive", I agree, but nothing scares asshole dicators more than removing them from their thrones. And that's what we just did.
I'm fairly mixed on this stuff, the more I think about it. Does that make me a bad person? I think not
-Jay[/QUOTE]
If the puppet regime in Arabia, or any other, were a threat to the Jews' throne in America, don't kid yourself, they'd be nuked in a second. Do you actually believe that they hate us for our freedom or something? Hell, the rest of the world just wants to go on living. They know that nobody is a military rival or threat to the American terminator. No, they don't hate you. Your own government hates you.
I don't think you're a bad person. I've found many of your posts, though not this particular one, to be very insightful.
2004-01-06 18:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Go ahead, turn on the messenger. It's what conservatives do best.[/QUOTE]
Ruffin, no disrespect but you're the one who started turning on Pat's message sniping from the back bench about ideological purity. I'm just saying it is politically shortsighted, no, stupid, to cut off your nose to spite your face. It's not like your ideologically pure vision is so prevalent throughout the American mainstream media that you can afford to denounce everyone who doesn't toe the line on every point.
2004-01-06 18:29 | User Profile
Ruffin,
I believe you confuse Pat's loyalty to the Constitution as being the same as loyalty to the government. While he hasn't called for a Turner diaries style rebellion, he certainly has no use for the sort of people we have in the government nor the neo-cons who presently run it.
Nobody is turning on the messenger here. If anyone is guilty of turning on people it is folks like you that assume that the rest of us are cowards because we don't agree with what I think you would replace the Constitution with. Before you write back that it is a dead letter I'll say that yes, it has been gutted in places, but it is still intact in other areas. When they finally supplant the rest of it, it will be a different game then.
2004-01-06 18:36 | User Profile
I didn't "snipe" from the "back bench" about "ideological purity". I criticized Buchanan on his record. The snipers leapt completely over that... at me.
2004-01-06 18:44 | User Profile
Sert, if Americans didn't revolt when they were forcibly integrated with blacks, they never will, to point to one example.
=====
Who Was that Fat Lady?
by Edgar Steele
6 January 2004
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution (1999)
They have treated me and others like me with utter contempt. They have confiscated our property and put people in maximum-security prisons over ownership of fender washers, claiming they were unassembled silencer parts. ... They have shot a man's wife in the head because his gun's buttstock was too short. ... They burned 90 people alive over a disputed two hundred dollar tax. -- John Ross, Unintended Consequences (1996)
It ain't over until the fat lady sings. -- Old Southern American saying (concerning church service)
"It ain't over 'til it's over." -- Yogi Berra (1973)
It's over.
The fat lady has sung.
Elvis has left the building.
The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run -- over two hundred years -- but all good things must end...I guess...at least, that's what they say.
We all know how saying nothing sometimes can be among the most profound of statements. Ask any husband.
Nowhere is silence so profound as when offered by the Supremes. And, never has their silence been so overwhelming as on December 1, 2003. That's when the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see.
Here's the background, briefly: California's legislatively-crafted "assault weapon" ban was stronger than the national ban. Both bans essentially outlaw any rifle that looks like it means business, regardless of capability -- I kid you not, cosmetics really is the upshot of these bans.
Silveira sued in a losing attempt to overturn the more-stringent California ban. Silveira unsuccessfully appealed up through the legal system to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Next stop: US Supreme Court, which now has "denied cert," which means it allows the ruling below to stand.
Here's the real kicker, though. Silveira doesn't just nationalize the California definition of assault weapon. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm.
You heard me right. You no longer have a right to own a gun.
Mind you, here is the Second Amendment, in full: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Not just some people, but the people. You and me, in other words.
And it's a fundamental (God-given) right, therefore the government can't mess around with it...ever. "Unalienable rights," was how the Declaration of Independence described these fundamental rights. Unless we let it. We just did, by tolerating this sort of behavior from our government.
Mind you, the Ninth Circuit Court's judges didn't just come out and say you don't have a right to a gun. They did it in legalese: they merely "affirmed" a prior decision of their own, in which they said as much.
So, the US Supremes affirm the ruling of a lesser court (by silence, thereby making it the law of America, nonetheless, because contrary rulings from other jurisdictions will not be tolerated), which affirmed its own prior ruling, which says you have no right to own a gun.
Like thieves in the night, with stealth, the black-robed dictators steal your rights.
All this silence and misdirection clearly tells you how they feel about what it is they are doing. Yet, they go ahead and do it anyway. And the average American is too stupefied to know any better...or, worse, care. No, it does get worse: many who care and understand actually applaud this result.
The ground now has been set for blanket bans and confiscation. What? Cold, dead fingers, you say? Yeah, sure. When martial law is declared, hardly anybody will resist.
What? Martial law never will be declared in America, you say? Yeah, right. Just wait until the next Reichstag Fire....er....terrorist event which occurs on US soil. The smart money is betting that happens within a month or two, by the way.
Some will ask, "What's the big deal, anyway? Guns are no match for government munitions these days, anyway. Guns really are good only for hunting. Who needs hunting, with the Safeway just down the street?"
Here's my response, which echoes that of America's founding fathers: The Second Amendment's guarantee of the individual's right to bear arms actually comprises the teeth of the Constitution; what enables us to enforce the provisions of the Constitution against an out-of-control government.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Sound familiar? It should. It is from the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence.
Furthermore, small arms are scarcely outmoded. One need look only to the debacle occurring in Iraq at this moment for the proof of that statement.
And as for the Safeway? America's supply line is about 3 days long - no more, certainly. In a crunch, you can bet that all the publicly-available food will disappear overnight...into government hands, for consumption exclusively by "our leaders." Safely tucked away in all those nice, little underground shelters they built for themselves with our tax money in recent years.
Does the current system of elections in America constitute "Consent of the Governed?" Scarcely. Hardly anybody votes these days, it seems. We realize that any candidate allowed to run for office already has been vetted by the real powers that be. You think Howard Dean will be any different from Bush II? Really? Nobody who could make a difference will make a difference because such a person is not allowed to run for office...at any level.
I recently had a list member write to tell me, "Your legal talent is wasted on commentary. We suffer not from a lack of commentary. We suffer from a lack of lawyers who will file lawsuits on behalf of pro-white candidates/activists. One of the root causes for this is because the better educated, more affluent pro-white lawyers while sympathetic don't respect those who need legal help. It's a class thing." I disagree. What is pointless is the filing of lawsuits; the attempt to work within the system. The system is broken...irretrievably.
In fact, precisely what now is needed is commentary to awaken our fellow Americans to the tyranny growing in America.
The single best piece of commentary I have seen on the Silveira case is by another lawyer: "Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira" by Peter J. Mancus. ([url]http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp[/url]) His is a passionate and brilliant, albeit lengthy, article worthy of your time. Among Mr. Mancus' observations:
"What value is the 'right to petition to redress grievances' or to file a lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the applicable law correctly? That is what happened with Silveira at the Federal 9th Circuit...
"How viable is the 'right of self-defense' if you must first beg government's permission to defend your life with a gun, when government thinks it has the power to withhold its permission, with immunity, and to criminally prosecute you if it catches you packing a gun without its permission?...
"(T)he entire purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to take away government's unfettered discretion, but, guess what, government now claims it has that very discretion that the Framers intended to deny to government, and, to exacerbate matters, government now hides behind its immunities when it commits wrongdoing, and, still worse, it has the gall to accuse citizens of hiding behind their rights and being "gun nuts" or worse when they refuse to go along to get along...
"We are on an increasingly steeper slope toward a free fall into tyranny. The U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira made that slope steeper -- much steeper. That fact is simply not appreciated by some...
"I am afraid that a violent confrontation with our own Government(s) looms ahead...
"We are in a downward spiral toward some flashpoint where a hardcore of no-nonsense "no more" constitutionalists will press the issue and not submit to perceived, insufferable oppression...
"I know 'the gun solution' (political assassination, open rebellion, etc.) is fraught with peril and inadequate and morally complex and legally illegal. But, what is left? When we peacefully claim our birthrights, peacefully pursue a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court and are stiff-armed while we point to what is written in the Constitution, we are mocked, scorned, ridiculed, rebuffed, ignored, dismissed, and rejected...
"(I)t is not about guns. It never was about guns. It is really about this: 1) liberty; 2) ordinary citizens retaining a legally enforceable right to retain the most efficient, pragmatic means to enforce the rest of their rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution -- privately owned, registered or unregistered, firearms; 3) holding government accountable; 4) keeping government from indefinitely blowing through Constitutional red lights, violating the Constitution's commands; 5) forcing government to wear its Constitutional collar, connected to a Constitutional chain, staked firmly into the bedrock of Constitutional law.
"Now, when government slips that Constitutional collar and refuses to put it back on and wear it compliantly and honor the Constitution's commands, with the judiciary's blessings, what then?
"How does one make a snarly, robust, active, gargantuan government wear a collar it does not want to wear? How does one get close to the beast's teeth and claws to put on that collar and survive?...
"Before Silveira and now with Silveira, the peaceful, legal way was tried...It failed because the Black Robes and the system failed...
"Currently, the United States is not led, run, nor operated per its own Constitution's rules and commands. Our governments are out of control, and we, the People, have lost control of our own governments...
"When Governments succeed in manipulating us to focus on, and to chose between, Security versus Liberty, they win. They win because the instant we choose either, we forfeit the other, and we will inevitably lose what we chose. We especially lose when we choose Security. That choice makes us too dependent on Governments to protect us. Governments cannot protect us in all ways at all times. Governments can, and do, however, use this issue to manipulate us against ourselves, to surrender more Liberty so it can increase its powers over us and tie us down with its chains rather than we tie it down with the Constitution's chains..."
Keep in mind that Mr. Mancus, like myself, is a lawyer. He well appreciates what he dare not say aloud concerning judges and our government, on pain of being disbarred. Outspoken as are both he and I, still we are incapable of advocating things that you might legally advocate.
It is not yet illegal to bury weapons, so I can in all seriousness advise you to bury those you previously acquired "off paper," via private sales. Do it properly, with ammunition and in well-sealed, watertight containers. Be innovative and bury them where metal detectors will not ferret them out. Keep a couple, the ones for which the dealer ran background checks, to hand to the nice soldiers who inevitably will come to your door, gun registration lists in hand. At that point, it will be illegal for me to tell you to withhold any guns from the government, so the guns you bury today will be an issue only between your conscience and yourself.
Oh...and I don't know who that fat lady was, either. All I know is that, as she left the stage, I saw she was wearing a yarmulke.
EDGAR STEELE
2004-01-06 20:00 | User Profile
One other point I'd like to make is about this idea that Americans are learning things they didn't know from the likes of Buchanan, VDARE, etc. Any American who didn't know, long before he had internet access, that a race war is being waged against him, or that his government held him in utter contempt as it shuffled him around the world destroying nations, has to be a blind imbecile. More information has come out about who exactly is behind these things, and there's a lot to learn via this 'information superhighway', but the race problem and immigration that these "conservatives" carefully focus on, hedgingly, is not news. Who are these Americans who you're anxious to "wake up" at this late date? Who'd want them? The majority won't be on your side (awake) unless and until you're already in power, as any historian knows.
2004-01-06 20:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]One other point I'd like to make is about this idea that Americans are learning things they didn't know from the likes of Buchanan, VDARE, etc. Any American who didn't know, long before he had internet access, that a race war is being waged against him, or that his government held him in utter contempt as it shuffled him around the world destroying nations, has to be a blind imbecile. More information has come out about who exactly is behind these things, and there's a lot to learn via this 'information superhighway', but the race problem and immigration that these "conservatives" carefully focus on, hedgingly, is not news. Who are these Americans who you're anxious to "wake up" at this late date? Who'd want them? The majority won't be on your side (awake) unless and until you're already in power, as any historian knows.[/QUOTE]
Falling on the sword might be the choice for many people. Others maybe not.
Two incidents I heard about recently showed me both sides of the coin. One person was talking with a group of school administrators who were cleaning up after an office gathering, and asked if this was their Christmas party. The admins told this guy that no, it was to be called a "Holiday" party due to the requests of a certain vocal ethnic group in the area. This guy answered that of course they must be sensitive; people have a "Constitutional right not to be offended". According to my friend, every one of these state employees (all women) vigorously nodded their head and said things like "That's exactly right." Not a one even hesitated.
On the other hand, I was told about a local woman who had organized a "babysitting coop", whereby local mothers could trade sitting hours and track their "accounts". The flyers and handbooks were printed up, and the title of the group contained the word "Christian". The organizer got a call from a very shrill woman and her husband, both identifying themselves as Jews; they were offended and incensed that the literature contained the terrible word and demanded that it be changed. As it turns out, they gave the organizer false names- she ID'ed them through *69 as a Jewish couple living a block or so away. And they also had kids high school age and older- obviously they were not even potential participants in the group. She told this couple politely that they could join or choose not to join, but that she would refuse to change the name. This woman homeschools several kids and is a devout Catholic, but until this time she had no idea that people like this existed in her community or even anywhere outside New York City or Southern California. Now she's making the necessary connections; maybe I'll send her a copy of "CofC".
I think it's necessary to give up on some folks. But the small, seemingly insignificant daily incidents like this brave mothers experience have great potential to open some minds. We have an opportunity to reach these people who are wondering through a fog, perhaps blaming themselves for "intolerance" or other such rot. Every story like this is a chance to help other people out of cultural death and back onto the Occidental path. Flyers and protests aren't the answer at this point; they're too easy to dismiss and demonize. Personal relationships are the key; family and friends first, then other opportunities as they present. If you're one who travels frequently, you have many chances to strike up conversations about that "Left Behind" book another person is reading, or to answer questions about the MacDonald book or even the New Testament you're carrying. National Alliance leafleting, which sends tender folk to a web site promoting the "Turner Diaries", just isn't going to work- unless, of course, the type of "awake" person who advocates rooftop sniping as a means of cultural rebirth is seen as the ideal. It's not for me; I know too many good people who just need a push.
2004-01-06 22:07 | User Profile
Ruffin,
Sert, if Americans didn't revolt when they were forcibly integrated with blacks, they never will, to point to one example.
If this is totally the case, then what is the point to even post? On the surface it sounds like you have given up, between this and the other things you wrote. BTW, I agree with the thrust of Steele's argument, that is why I wrote that part of the Constitution has been gutted and it probably would take an act of firearm confiscation to motivate people to resist.
I agree that folks should have stop this nonsense along time ago. Our ancestors did in some cases and died trying in others. They were made up of much sterner stuff than alot of people today and reacted in a much more forceful manner. Nonetheless, I think that there are alot more out there than it seems and I haven't lost hope on this. I don't think you have either, otherwise you wouldn't bother to post anything or elsewhere.
Complaining about the paleos and thereby implying that the ones on this board are part of the problem isn't going to solve anything. While they are not perfect, at least they do focus people on the big picture. It is up to the rest of us to give them the finer details. What Weisbrot wrote is excellent and here is a person that probably can be reached due to the unpleasant experience that she had. The Americans that I wish to wake up (and in some cases, have) are the same ones that Weisbrot wishes to.
2004-01-06 22:16 | User Profile
I am actually suprised that such event as forced integration came through. Did millions of Americans just sit ildly when their sons and daughers started coming from school telling stories about the animals?
2004-01-07 01:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]If the puppet regime in Arabia, or any other, were a threat to the Jews' throne in America, don't kid yourself, they'd be nuked in a second. Do you actually believe that they hate us for our freedom or something? Hell, the rest of the world just wants to go on living. They know that nobody is a military rival or threat to the American terminator. No, they don't hate you. Your own government hates you.
Then what's the deal with North Korea? They don't hate Jews one bit, hell, they don't even have any in their country. Obviously, they're building an arsenal to continue the battle against S. Korea.
Taiwan is pissed that China is pointing missiles at them. Again, has nothing to do with Jews. I whole-heartedly agree the Mohammedans hate us for the "Israel Question", who doesn't? But the rest of the world doesn't....and the fact we're still in Japan & Germany 50 years later suggests they're hardly "democracies"
I don't think you're a bad person. I've found many of your posts, though not this particular one, to be very insightful.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry you feel that way.
-Jay
2004-01-07 04:50 | User Profile
Sertorius, I wish you'd stop accusing me of blaming the people on this board or of calling the people on this board cowards. I've done no such thing! I directed those remarks at Buchanan and Francis and the big boys that are looked up to so much by people who think they're doing such a wonderful job.
Btw, I wouldn't waste my time criticizing my avowed enemies. What would be the point there?
2004-01-07 05:11 | User Profile
weisbrot - IMO, considering that we don't have a mass media at our disposal, proselytizing turns people off. It has always turned me off anyway. That lady may have figured something out, but if so, she figured it out for herself from her own experience. I believe that most people who're nudged or enlightened into it without any personal experience to affirm it (or eyes in their head) will just as easily revert to the party line during the next TV show. If I wanted to "convert" someone, I would, at most, shake my head at something, in their presence, and let them drag it out of me in proportion to their interest. But then I don't have the pulpit Buchanan does!
2004-01-07 05:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]I am actually suprised that such event as forced integration came through. Did millions of Americans just sit ildly when their sons and daughers started coming from school telling stories about the animals?[/QUOTE]
No, some actually huffed and puffed and posed in the schoolhouse door until the cameras turned away. Parents turned their heads. The ones who couldn't afford white flight did anyway. The ones who're now in gated communities, the ones who fled, looked down on the racist ones who couldn't.
Surely someone in heaven laughed out loud at this people having a second amendment.
2004-01-07 05:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Then what's the deal with North Korea? They don't hate Jews one bit, hell, they don't even have any in their country. Obviously, they're building an arsenal to continue the battle against S. Korea.
Taiwan is pissed that China is pointing missiles at them. Again, has nothing to do with Jews. I whole-heartedly agree the Mohammedans hate us for the "Israel Question", who doesn't? But the rest of the world doesn't....and the fact we're still in Japan & Germany 50 years later suggests they're hardly "democracies"[/QUOTE]
The United States has troops in approx. 130 countries around the world. It has now openly declared its intention (it used to be sort of a secret from some people) to go anywhere and do whatever it deems necessary to advance the "global democratic revolution". If I was North Korea I'd damn sure arm to the teeth and snarl too. I don't care if NK invades SK, or Taiwan either. They aren't threatening to me, my own government is, socially as well as by its provocational behaviour around the world.
I'm not sure what you mean by Japan and Germany not being "democracies". I would only say that, of course they aren't. They're conquered territories.
[QUOTE]I'm sorry you feel that way.[/QUOTE]
Well, it's because I disagree with you about the particular subject.
-Jay[/QUOTE]
2004-01-07 12:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Sertorius, I wish you'd stop accusing me of blaming the people on this board or of calling the people on this board cowards. I've done no such thing! I directed those remarks at Buchanan and Francis and the big boys that are looked up to so much by people who think they're doing such a wonderful job.[/QUOTE]
Okay, Ruffin, fair enough.
Btw, I wouldn't waste my time criticizing my avowed enemies. What would be the point there?
I don't know. I reckon the purpose behind your posts here are just to let off some ideological steam at those who don't meet your standards of ideological purity.
2004-01-07 14:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]weisbrot - IMO, considering that we don't have a mass media at our disposal, proselytizing turns people off. It has always turned me off anyway. That lady may have figured something out, but if so, she figured it out for herself from her own experience. I believe that most people who're nudged or enlightened into it without any personal experience to affirm it (or eyes in their head) will just as easily revert to the party line during the next TV show. If I wanted to "convert" someone, I would, at most, shake my head at something, in their presence, and let them drag it out of me in proportion to their interest. But then I don't have the pulpit Buchanan does![/QUOTE]
Agreed. Avid proselytizing is mostly useless. But the examples I've mentioned have been my experience; I spent one long flight discussing "Left Behind" with a woman who was convinced she was reading holy prophesy; she walked off the flight with lots of new questions in her head. This person had never linked U.S. foreign policy with the apocaplyptic beliefs of dispensationalists, and had never even considered that Zionists might be using the situation to their advantage. Maybe the next FOX broadcast will have her asking more questions instead of believing that O'Reilly is a good solid 'Mercun for supporting Israel. And the approach you mention is probably best when speaking with individuals; no one wants to think they're agreeing with a demagogue.
As for Buchanan, hardly anyone has the pulpit he has. And he won't have it for long if he attempts to play the edge constantly. I'm not certain of his privately held beliefs, but I feel sure they probably match mine more closely than those of Sean Hannity. So I'm inclined to give him a break. Other outlets like VDARE are in the same boat. Brimelow is obviously aware, and I think does a fairly good job of snapping the spotlight on some of the more obvious situations that would lead a questioning individual to some of the conclusions that are reached on this board. These outlets have no credibility to lose, but if they leave themselves open to Frankfurt School attacks, they'll lose whatever platform they've created or been given.
2004-01-07 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]The United States has troops in approx. 130 countries around the world. It has now openly declared its intention (it used to be sort of a secret from some people) to go anywhere and do whatever it deems necessary to advance the "global democratic revolution". If I was North Korea I'd damn sure arm to the teeth and snarl too. I don't care if NK invades SK, or Taiwan either. They aren't threatening to me, my own government is, socially as well as by its provocational behaviour around the world.
Well, I care about the NK situation. While it's true that the "world doesn't hate us for our freedom", they sure hate each other, and we'd be fools not to prevent these imbeciles from doing something to impact our lives here in the USA.
NK isn't armed b/c America is close by. And China isn't pointing at Taiwan b/c we're "declaring intentions" I have mucho sypmathy with your sentiments on the MIddle East and the reasons why we're there, but the rest of the world doens't fit into your tight viewpoint of cause/effect.
[QUOTE]I'm not sure what you mean by Japan and Germany not being "democracies". I would only say that, of course they aren't. They're conquered territories.[/QUOTE]
That's true, and that's why we're still there. Japan is not, contrary to the NeoCon's nonsensical assertions, a "modern-day example of democracy" They'll be democratic as long as we have those guns pointed in their faces from within their own borders. Is that good? I don't know. Perhaps Japan's natural tendencies towards dictatorship would be better - maybe not. that's what I'm saying. this issue is quite complex, the proliferation of WMD's should scare the shit out of us all and if you feel sitting alone in America would solve this issue, that's your prerogative. I'm not so sure.
-Jay
2004-01-07 21:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]As for Buchanan, hardly anyone has the pulpit he has. And he won't have it for long if he attempts to play the edge constantly. I'm not certain of his privately held beliefs, but I feel sure they probably match mine more closely than those of Sean Hannity. So I'm inclined to give him a break. Other outlets like VDARE are in the same boat. Brimelow is obviously aware, and I think does a fairly good job of snapping the spotlight on some of the more obvious situations that would lead a questioning individual to some of the conclusions that are reached on this board. These outlets have no credibility to lose, but if they leave themselves open to Frankfurt School attacks, they'll lose whatever platform they've created or been given.[/QUOTE]
Well, I disagree (except for the part about Hannity :pimp: ). I don't think coded language works with the people it's intended to reach, if that's the intention at all. For example, on the LOS site ( [url]http://www.dixienet.org/[/url] ) I read all about how "neo-con" doesn't mean "Jew". This confirms my suspicion that people who can't connect the dots in their government's policies or who aren't already alert to their second class status aren't equipped to decode language. If Buchanan doesn't add some color to his sermon and push the envelope his pulpit is useless. Old soldiers don't die, they just fade away. Leaders, otoh, are aggressive.
Republicans aren't called the Stupid Party for no reason. Timidity is the plague of conservatives and the reason the 2nd amendment is useless, IMO.
I don't mean to go round and round about this but it helps with my thinking.
2004-01-07 21:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Well, I care about the NK situation. While it's true that the "world doesn't hate us for our freedom", they sure hate each other, and we'd be fools not to prevent these imbeciles from doing something to impact our lives here in the USA.[/QUOTE]
I think that they'd be a lot less likely to care about us at all, let alone try to impact our lives, if we'd stop poking them with a stick. We have no business stationing our troops anywhere near them, nor concerning ourselves with the form of government they have, nor with whether they hate each other or not. Our own leaders are responsible for this, and ultimately, us. Empires don't last forever and unless our cowboy government is removed or inhibited in its bullying the revenge our children will probably suffer at the hands of a fed up world might just extinguish our race.
2004-01-07 22:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Well, I disagree (except for the part about Hannity :pimp: ). I don't think coded language works with the people it's intended to reach, if that's the intention at all. For example, on the LOS site ( [url]http://www.dixienet.org/[/url] ) I read all about how "neo-con" doesn't mean "Jew". This confirms my suspicion that people who can't connect the dots in their government's policies or who aren't already alert to their second class status aren't equipped to decode language. If Buchanan doesn't add some color to his sermon and push the envelope his pulpit is useless. Old soldiers don't die, they just fade away. Leaders, otoh, are aggressive.
Republicans aren't called the Stupid Party for no reason. Timidity is the plague of conservatives and the reason the 2nd amendment is useless, IMO.
I don't mean to go round and round about this but it helps with my thinking.[/QUOTE]
For some reason I suspected you hadn't been Hannitized.
I don't know. I think I'm suspicious of the obfuscators, who are practicing the IIGFTJ's? strategy in denying reality, such as the ethnic nature of neoconservatism: [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11779[/url]
As for the LOS, I have my doubts about those folks. Haven't they been coopted of late by the same "conservatives" that coopted FR?
2004-01-07 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]I think that they'd be a lot less likely to care about us at all, let alone try to impact our lives, if we'd stop poking them with a stick.
I think they know who we are, w/o poking them. Hard to insulate ourselves anymore.
We have no business stationing our troops anywhere near them, nor concerning ourselves with the form of government they have, nor with whether they hate each other or not.
It's a good debate. What about the neighbor down the street that puts crap in his front yard? I'd suspect we'd all go down there and say something to him. At some point, things other people do affect us all, tho I don't know how severely in the Asian cases.
I do know our economy runs on cheap oil. They have it, we need it. I don't see another way out of that one. Anyway, what is your solution? Pull out, let the chips fall? That's a big proposition.
Our own leaders are responsible for this, and ultimately, us.
Agreed. So what's a realistic solution? (read: realistic)
Empires don't last forever and unless our cowboy government is removed or inhibited in its bullying the revenge our children will probably suffer at the hands of a fed up world might just extinguish our race.[/QUOTE]
You're right: Empires do fall. But we've had one for damn near 200 years, with no sign of any weakening I can see. There's a reason the USA is the longest current Government in the World. It has underlying strengths. I'm as pissed as you are about the War Party. However, I do at least acknowledge that I'm not certain about what it means for Joe Sixpack.
As for the race issue, would you prefer us take the French route - kissing the arse of Islamic states while concurrently inviting them to mass emigrate into our country? I think "revenge" is something those that hate us don't even have to do. We're killing ourselves, with or without imperialism.
-Jay
2004-01-08 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]For some reason I suspected you hadn't been Hannitized.
I don't know. I think I'm suspicious of the obfuscators, who are practicing the IIGFTJ's? strategy in denying reality, such as the ethnic nature of neoconservatism: [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=11779[/url]
As for the LOS, I have my doubts about those folks. Haven't they been coopted of late by the same "conservatives" that coopted FR?[/QUOTE]
Hilarious article. :lol:
Buchanan et al stand for some good things all right (when they're not apologizing for them) but I think they're missing a golden opportunity. The topic of Jewish influence is out in the open now. It took a year after 911 for many people to put things together, but some pressure is on. The IP is very good at coming up with new propaganda devices that cause people to forget the recent past, and I fear that failure to sock it to them when it's possible will lead to another sixty years of goyish thumb sucking. I know that Pat's books are great entry material. I question the potential numeric gains this material still portends, as opposed to the possible losses that continued vagueness might cause, since American politics, like women's clothing, is faddish and, left dangling, is deemed old hat (and we know who loves that theme).
While my thoughts on the matter won't reach Buchanan, if his finger is sensitive to the wind at all I hope he'll take notice of those of us who think he should speed it up some. We're many, many more than we were a couple of years ago, thanks to the brazenness of you-know-who (moreso than to his admittedly decent works). The troops need rallying, and leaders, if possible.
I know some of the LOS leaders and I know for a fact that they know the score. Why they allow their organization to be Birched.... I'm baffled.
2004-01-08 04:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I think they know who we are, w/o poking them. Hard to insulate ourselves anymore.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that running roughshod over everyone is good insulation. I think it's highly and intentionally provocational and is the opposite of an insular policy.
[QUOTE]It's a good debate. What about the neighbor down the street that puts crap in his front yard? I'd suspect we'd all go down there and say something to him. At some point, things other people do affect us all, tho I don't know how severely in the Asian cases.[/QUOTE]
NK and Iraq aren't in our neighborhood. Asia isn't. Our actions are more akin to one neighborhood travelling across town demanding that other neighborhoods pay its association fees and follow its rules. They haven't sent their forces over here. We send our forces over there.
[QUOTE]I do know our economy runs on cheap oil. They have it, we need it. I don't see another way out of that one. Anyway, what is your solution? Pull out, let the chips fall? That's a big proposition.[/QUOTE]
Haven't they always been willing to sell it to us? When we weren't supporting their enemies during a war anyway?
"Peace between Moslem and Christian was a century-old fact until ended by the acts of the Truman administration on behalf of 'Israel.'" ~ John Beaty, author/former military intelligence officer, from his book "The Iron Curtain Over America," 1951, reprinted 1995;
[QUOTE]Agreed. So what's a realistic solution? (read: realistic)[/QUOTE]
I suppose it depends on what one considers realistic. Heaping abuse and ridicule on the identifiable powerbrokers, Jews and their goy politicians, seems like a good place to start.
[QUOTE]You're right: Empires do fall. But we've had one for damn near 200 years, with no sign of any weakening I can see. There's a reason the USA is the longest current Government in the World. It has underlying strengths. I'm as pissed as you are about the War Party. However, I do at least acknowledge that I'm not certain about what it means for Joe Sixpack.[/QUOTE]
Joe Sixpack, if he keeps to the sixpack while sending his sons off to war with the world, and while his daughter is running around with negroes, will reap what he sows. I wish it weren't this way, but I think we'll be better off without him, if we survive.
[QUOTE]As for the race issue, would you prefer us take the French route - kissing the arse of Islamic states while concurrently inviting them to mass emigrate into our country? I think "revenge" is something those that hate us don't even have to do. We're killing ourselves, with or without imperialism.
-Jay[/QUOTE]
I think this is something that European puppet governments are doing to their people and that as many Euros are against it (Islamic and other non-Euro immigration) as Americans are with a similar problem. Islamic states don't have any leverage over Euro governments any more than Mexico has leverage over the US. They're being mixed because that's the Jewish dream, and post-1945 their dream is western policy.
It may sound like a teenager's idea, but I'm 47 and I think that mutiny is our best hope. I didn't always think like this. As a kid I was a conservative while my buddies talked about (leftist) revolution. Now they're conservatives.
2004-01-27 11:04 | User Profile
I think the definition of a great OD thread is one where the various arguments are presented so crisply and persuasively that you end up agreeing with [I]every [/I] side, at least in part. That's certainly the case here.
Ruffin always has good points to make and -sadly- is often misunderstood by many here. But the contrary views are just as well-reasoned....heck, I even found the PJB essay that got this ball rolling to be one of his best pieces.
I would add that one of the reasons, imo, we spend so much time sniping at one another is that whites are the only racial group on this earth who are penalized by law for gathering amongst themselves and referring to each other as 'we'. When the mongrelization of the West was in its infancy, whites were once faintly praised for holding themselves to a higher standard than the self-identifying tunnelvision of blacks, Jews, Latinos, etc. (Naturally,as said mongrelization could not have been implemented without a majority lulled into somnambulism.)
But now that the Day of the Ape is upon us, no more sleight of hand is necessary; and of all the endangered species on Earth, we represent the only one whose ultimate eradication is openly rooted for. Now how about that: white people don't even rate the concern devoted to the Great Auk.
Until we can openly gather, and network, and build bridges [I]amongst ourselves [/I] -unless and until a white man can say "we" out loud in referring to his racial brethren -this will not change. But those who would "burn the village to save the village" are simply too chickenshit to contemplate white unity without a covering fire of apocalypse to distract our enemies.