← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 12134 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2004-02-03
2004-02-03 22:28 | User Profile
[COLOR=Navy]There may be some chowderheads who take this essay at face value: as a ringing endorsement of John Kerry [I]nee [/I] Kohn; but Joe's bemused disgust at the entire charade of the modern Presidential election seems pretty apparent to me. And why not? Bush, Dean, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman...whoever you vote for, you're either getting a Tribesman or a marionette with a Semitic arm up the back of his shirt. This is so blatantly a fait accompli - the Jews stay on top whether or not they have to throw this war and its mongers to the wolves in exchange - that nobody's even bothering to whine for a female or Hispanic candidate this time. Even Sharpton can't milk face time on the national news out of this campaign, a dead giveaway that this one's a done deal...Katz in the bag, bag's in the White House. Whoever wins is a lock to fire the first staffer or Cabinet appointee who publicly identifies him/herself as White Without Guilt...so why go through the motions of getting excited?
So, free of charge, I offer to all three networks the ideal 'title' for their coverage. Why expend time, money and spinning glitter-graphics on some lame slogan like DECISION '04 or THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE or even THE BRAWL FOR IT ALL when you can sum it up much better with MEET THE NEW BOSS - SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.[/COLOR]
[B]The New JFK [/B] [I]Joseph Sobran[/I]
January 20, 2004
Just like that, the Dean ballyhoo is over. The ballyhooed Iowa caucuses have come and gone, and it’s time for the Kerry ballyhoo.
Oh, how exciting it is, this hoss race for the Democratic presidential nomination! Howard Dean was the front-runner for ever so long, without having won anything; and now that he’s badly flunked his first real test, losing by an embarrassing margin to John Kerry and finishing way behind even the unballyhooed John (who?) Edwards, the media have some serious adjusting to do.
Now they have to explain the hitherto unnoticed charisma of John F. (at least I think it’s F) Kerry, the mournful-faced New Englander who looks as if he was cloned from weepy Ed Muskie, though, being a Democrat from Massachusetts, he naturally prefers to be known as JFK.
What a comeback! Only days ago, the coroners were sadly shaking their heads over poor Kerry’s carcass, knowingly explaining his early expiration. Now they must knowingly explain why his vitality and appeal were so badly underrated, as if they knew it all along.
Meanwhile, Dr. Dean is crowing, “I’m delighted to finish in the top three. On to New Hampshire!” That’s the spirit! Act as if that miserable finish were a wonderful surprise. This guy could play King Lear for comedy.
Well, the Democrats have been looking for a new JFK for a generation, and they’ve finally got one. He may not have a rich father, but he has a rich wife who can buy him all the charisma he needs. And like the other JFK, he’s a decorated war hero. His position on the latest war is a little fuzzy, but the Republican chicken hawks will have a hard time painting him as a worse coward than George W. Bush.
The Iowa results also come as a shockeroo to the Democrat big shots who have been putting their chips on Dean and Gen. Wesley Clark. Suddenly Al Gore and the Clintons no longer look like kingmakers. These distinguished public servants have suffered a terrible diminution, along with Dick Gephardt and that erstwhile conscience of the party, Joe Lieberman.
It may be premature to count Al Sharpton out, but if Iowa wasn’t exactly his home turf, let’s face it, neither is New Hampshire. He always does best in long, hot summers, and an endorsement from Tawana Brawley may not be enough to pull him through a long, cold winter. Still, he’s not a man to be deterred by the scoffing of critics.
But whatever happens next, this is undeniably JFK’s moment. The Democrats are thrilled! They’ve waited so long for this! A savior who can unite the party against Bush! No baggage of women, draft-dodging, drugs, or scandal. No Mafia links. No sleazy real estate deals. No silly hippie past. None of Dean’s personal abrasiveness. He’s not a crook, he’s never inhaled, and as far as anyone knows he’s never been near Arkansas or laid eyes, let alone hands, on Gennifer Flowers.
The perfect resume! A Democrat who has never even been mentioned in The National Enquirer! Yes! Yes! Why didn’t we see it before?
Bush himself has been trying to do the JFK act, seeking a New Frontier in outer space — the moon, Mars, “a human presence across our solar system,” no less. But it isn’t very inspiring. Pretty tiresome by now, frankly. How many planets do we really need to conquer? Even spreading democracy on this one has lost its tang.
True, this JFK lacks magnetism. Many have considered him stolid and boring. But in due course the media will see the flip side of these qualities, which they will call “gravitas.” When you put it that way, it sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Gravitas is soooo presidential.
And Bush ain’t got any. He is severely gravitas-impaired. It’s all his speechwriters can do to get him to speak in complete sentences. When he speaks English, you wonder what his first language was. You also wonder what you have to do to flunk out of Yale these days.
Sorry, Texas. Massachusetts is back.
2004-02-04 08:19 | User Profile
What happens if/when Kerry wins the presidency? Is that good or bad?
2004-02-04 12:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sheridan]What happens if/when Kerry wins the presidency? Is that good or bad?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter, because there is in fact only one party.
America is a one-party state, because both of the major parties are controlled by the same narrow corporate and Tribal interests.
They'e great at playing the GOP's Tweedledee against the DemonRat's Tweedledum, but they're really all the same because the same people sign their checks.
We need a third party, but fat chance of that.
The only hope that we have of remaining free and in control of our destiny is for the Empire to collapse, may it crumble soon.
Walter
2004-02-04 13:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sheridan]What happens if/when Kerry wins the presidency? Is that good or bad?[/QUOTE]
How could it be any worse than that anti-White, Mexcriment-loving, pro-Israel [url=http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html]idiot[/url] who occupies the White House now?
[img]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/images/20040115-7_wreath2-515h.jpg[/img]
2004-02-07 21:44 | User Profile
Bush and Kerry are both Yale Bonesmen.
Small world.
2004-02-08 05:03 | User Profile
thats right, Ed. Think about it for a moment. We always say these facts but I don't believe that the real implications are understood. Granted, Kerry has denounced Skull and Bones. Now Im not going to say that its impossible for a man to denounce something he was a part of in his youth. I firmly believe changes can happen, profound changes. But we're not talking about a frat party here, we're not talking about normal friendships that develop and mature in life. We're talking about ceremony, blood oath, and back stabbing. Can Kerry fend this off ? I don't know, but I will tell u my opinion of him. Its a much higher opinion than that I have of George W Bush. Being from RI, right in Mass back yard, maybe I am a little pre disposed here. But this man is not a fake. He doesn't appear to me to be a sneaky character. Can't you sense any sincerity in his words ? Personally, Ive never voted for a Democrat in my life. I didnt vote for Bush either, I voted for Pat Buchanan. But I did vote for Bob Dole. Seriously, I know we are choosing the lesser of two evils, but something about Kerry smacks me in a fairly decent way.
2004-02-08 06:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I will tell u my opinion of him. Its a much higher opinion than that I have of George W Bush. Being from RI, right in Mass back yard, maybe I am a little pre disposed here. But this man is not a fake. He doesn't appear to me to be a sneaky character. [/QUOTE]
The man claimed to be an Irish Catholic all his political life until somebody pointed out his brother was an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, which is not something one sees every day in Catholic households. Suddenly he pulled an Albright and "channelled" his German Jewish ancestry. Apparently Grandad had arrived in Boston a [I]Kohn[/I], but a quick recon of the terrain convinced him that perhaps a presto-chango into [I]Kerry [/I] would be the better part of valor here.
2004-02-08 07:02 | User Profile
I'm not voting. Any White man who votes in a US election is a fool. Not worth the effort to pull the lever. The White Race in the US is dead. All hail the Mestizo/Hispanic!
2004-02-08 07:50 | User Profile
I'm not going to vote, either. There's no point. Like Walter said, no matter whom you vote for, you're still voting for the Tribe and its policies supporting lax immigration, multiculturalism, radical egalitarianism, Israel, gun control (goy control), "anti-hate" laws, etc., etc. What's more, even having someone like David Duke in the Oval Office might not be enough to change our bearing, as Congress is firmly in the pocket of Israel and is going to remain there as long as the pro-Israel lobby has all the money and organizational structure. I, too, am anxiously awaiting the day when the JewSA collapses like every other empire in history. But when that happens, will WNs be ready to take over?
2004-02-08 20:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]The man claimed to be an Irish Catholic all his political life until somebody pointed out his brother was an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, which is not something one sees every day in Catholic households. Suddenly he pulled an Albright and "channelled" his German Jewish ancestry...[/QUOTE]
This process is called "retro-acculturation" and it's very, very powerful.
The new anti-immigrant paperback Metamorphosis has a small section on the number of Latin "conversos" who are discovering their Jewish roots and tripping over themselves to get to the nearest synagogue. (Lots of Marranos wound up in Mexico, which might explain something.)
Lots of Latins, Jews and others get retro-acculturated, but not many Euros -- so far. But then maybe it ain't being reported right. When we get that way it's called "racist".
There's a Cecil B. DeMille movie about retro-acculturation called The Ten Commandments the TV networks show every spring. It's about how Moses, just like Kerry, finds his Hebrew roots and...
2004-02-10 21:25 | User Profile
Sheridan: [QUOTE]What happens if/when Kerry wins the presidency? Is that good or bad?[/QUOTE]
Walter Yannis: [QUOTE]It doesn't matter, because there is in fact only one party.
America is a one-party state, because both of the major parties are controlled by the same narrow corporate and Tribal interests.
They'e great at playing the GOP's Tweedledee against the DemonRat's Tweedledum, but they're really all the same because the same people sign their checks.
We need a third party, but fat chance of that.
The only hope that we have of remaining free and in control of our destiny is for the Empire to collapse, may it crumble soon.[/QUOTE]
By now Walterââ¬â¢s thinking on this topic is probably shared by all (posting) members, save the last point which is quite contentious but that can be said of most forecasts. His short answer is more than sufficient guidance for any present or future presidential election. Here, mainly for the benefit of spectators, is the long, tedious, devoid of any novelties version of this particular brand of heresy.
This view posits that at the very least the US is headed for an economic reconstitution of sort, courtesy of unmanageable levels of debt, pending Boomer onslaught on social security, and accelerated decimation of the middle class. It is acknowledged by the few mainstream experts willing to discuss these unpleasant things that, as is the norm when pussyfooting with costly but addictive social programs, two things will happen: the programs will be scaled back and taxes will go up. Trouble is that the level of scaling back necessary for the numbers to balance out is such that those impacted will think it unpalatable and act accordingly.
Recent events in France were a case in point. The government introduced modest, really only the first tentative legislative steps designed to give their (admittedly more bloated) variant of social security some semblance of viability for a few more years, but the voters wanted none of it and the proposals were DOA. As will be the case here (and everywhere else in the West) the government was assailing the interests of the middle and higher aged segments of the population -- the wealthiest, the highest positioned, and percentage wise the most frequent voting. The outcome was foreordained and so is the alternative.
Increasing taxes will not be popular but it will be the only solution remaining -- the noisemakers will point the way. It will help that the government can also be more creative, rely less on income tax, focus on supplementary taxes and hidden fees while neglecting/cutting back traditional services, and playing the blame the jurisdiction/municipality game. Whatever the means of milking are utilized the impact on families will be nothing less than terminal. This is the same group that in some European countries is already procreating at a rate of 1.3 per female. The next generation will do better still. They would anyway, without the extra tax burdens, for the factors conducive to fecundity (e.g., percentage who marry, age when first married, level of female education, etc.) are arrayed in the wrong direction and more so with passage of time. So when the Boomers begin asserting themselves with vigor weââ¬â¢ll encounter something like a perfect storm.
For those that disdain ââ¬Åextremismââ¬Â this is the most fundamental issue of our age and guardedly acknowledged as such by most thinking beings. Alas politicians cannot speak of it openly for to do so would make plain their impotence to deal with it.
The problem is of structural nature, quite possibly inherent in all complex societies with advanced economies but, I speculate, particularly prominent in liberal democracies. In a finite world, increasing specialization of labor, proliferation of trade with economic primitives, and imbalance in production with purchasing power are problems in waiting and require rigorous control. Democracies have the added burden of revolving door politics where entry is eased by promises of sweets. Other notable accelerants -- some would argue determinants -- include wide ranging suffrage and alien subversion.
So what will John Kerry do about it if elected? His success via conventional contemporary politics [I]by definition means that there is NOTHING he can do about it.[/I]
Concerning little things, however, there is plenty to vote for or against. For instance, itââ¬â¢s a foregone conclusion that Al Gore would not have pushed through a tax cut or invaded Iraq if he were president. If these things matter, for whatever reason, be they personal and immediate, or because one set of possible long term consequences or expediting factors is deemed preferable, than you have something to base a decision on. The consensus is that democratic administrations can be relied upon to ferment cultural subversion while republican terms provide the necessary consolidation periods for the changes to take hold. Is there in fact a significant difference between the two, and, if so, must it always be the overriding factor? These variables should go into the calculus of decision making if one cannot bare the thought of neglecting civic duty.
Again, on the fundamental issues JFK can do nothing, not even if he were the most capable and well meaning sort. Still with fundamentals, he will not act to halt or limit immigration, despite its appeal to a comfortable majority of Americans. Why? Corporate greed bent on keeping a lid on salaries wonââ¬â¢t allow it. More politely, we need immigrants, say proponents (who have the ears of those that make decisions), to pay for our retirement plans and to perform work that we will not. The latter point has a smidgeon of truth, but only because the work in question has been devalued and the remuneration so lowered that it renders impossible any attempt to raise a family with one such income. The steady stream of cheap labor aggravates the problem.
The idea of bringing in immigrants to help government coffers may seem reasonable in light of our coming economic difficulties but fails to survive close scrutiny. Since the argument obviously hinges on the aliensââ¬â¢ ability/promptness to become diligent taxpayers, it is a miracle that anyone who makes this point is not laughed out of the country given the financial reality of California. But then not every importing jurisdiction shares a border with Mexico or makes it a point to scrub the bottom of the barrel when trolling for warm bodies. The Far East Asians, for example, are about as productive (some subgroups do better still) as whites, once acclimatized. Tally-ho for the immigration peddlers! Yes? Well, actually, no because it turns out that the fertility levels of new arrivals after a while come to resemble those of the host population. Even worse, the correlation varies inversely with the aliensââ¬â¢ productivity. Second or third generations of imported good citizens/tax-payers (e.g., Japanese, Koreans, Hong-Kong Chinese, etc) go on to mimic white reproductive patterns almost perfectly; the scions of groups that rely disproportionately on welfare and such (e.g., Blacks, Mexicans, etc) also curb their breeding habits, but never to a point where they equal the rates of their tax producing cohabitants. Conclusion: One can be highly selective, i.e., ââ¬Åracist,ââ¬Â in choosing immigrants, but no matter the volume the fundamental problem remains and the liberal immigration solution is only a (partial) solution [I]if maintained in perpetuity.[/I] It goes without saying that the policy amounts to de facto extinction/supplanting of the founding people.
As someone who is partial to Spengler/Yockeyââ¬â¢s idea of a nation organism I can accept the reality of a cultural lifespan. What I struggle with is the idea, implicit in PC remedies, that the white race is obliged to relinquish [I]all[/I] territories and thereby surrender its genetic uniqueness for eternity. This dilemma, the views of the theorists excepted, is implicitly shared by every American who reads literally the founding fathersââ¬â¢ commentaries concerning ââ¬Åour progeny.ââ¬Â
Governments come and go. Systems of governing come and go. Economies rise and fall. Only genetic uniqueness, once diluted, does not return to its previous form, [I]absence mass infusion of the original material.[/I] Since white habitats the world over are being inundated by genetic foreigners there is the real possibility that in time such material will not be found anywhere. Genes are the arbiters of human potential. Their preservation and propagation is the root of ââ¬Åconservation.ââ¬Â At last we enter the realm of ââ¬Åextremism,ââ¬Â for in todayââ¬â¢s political environment white preservation can only mean physical separation, which, as everyone knows, amounts to ââ¬Åracism.ââ¬Â If you, my dear tolerant (white) reader, do not count yourself as one of [I]those,[/I] ask yourself the following:
Why is the follow up question to why we need immigrants NEVER asked? What is it about our society, our way of life that makes our nation organisms non-viable -- that we have reached the point where our whole is depended on the continued arrival of individuals properly belonging to other nation bodies? The answer, of course, requires honest evaluation of the fundamentals, the dominant social-cultural paradigms of contemporary western democracies. In a rational, conservative-oriented white society this would be the starting point when considering depopulation and concomitant economic/social ills. Is an internal adjustment needed or do we take the easy way out and import cheap laborers. (Which, BTW, amounts to theft, per latest requirements, the cheap laborers are often talented individuals fleeing nations that can least afford their departure.)
Those concerned with perpetuating the status quo quite naturally interdict such exploration. Sensitive career-minded politicians heed their warning. Logic dictates that the political ranking of a ââ¬Åpublic servantââ¬Â is commensurate with the extent of his training/acquiescence with regards to boundaries suitable for public discourse. Sans exception, every White House occupant undergoes a long and arduous process of culling, ensuring an end-product of sound respect for political orthodoxy and requisite pliability of the mind vis-à-vis ââ¬Åspecialââ¬Â opportunities that occasionally come down. :)
Ergo, political contests beyond local and some mid-range levels amount to a complete waste of time for any ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â who takes his aims seriously.
[QUOTE]What happens if/when Kerry wins the presidency? Is that good or bad?[/QUOTE] As AY is suggesting, the question, unless youââ¬â¢re angling for government contracts, ranks considerably lower than, say: ââ¬ÅWhatââ¬â¢s for dinner?ââ¬Â
2004-02-12 04:04 | User Profile
It appears that there may be a Jew bloodline in John Kerry. Il Ragno will call him Kerry / Kohn. Its really not important. We cannot avoid Jews. They exist. We have to confront them on their own terms and limit their capacity to influence this country. And if that means identifying them, I am all FOR IT. If it means eliminating them, then it must be done.
Sisyfos, you are so long worded, you must be a PhD..we're all trying to live in this modern world , as anti-human as it is, and make the best. I feel the same discouragement, the same dis-connection. Its enough to unravel a man it can make us fell apart from the Intention of God, and kill our will. Its real. I feel it. We need pastures. We need open lands to feel free. I will tell you right now, as much as I KNOW ITS A FACT that John Kerry will be our next President. Take that to the bank. He has already won. Even given all , even the fact they were both members of Skull and Bones, maybe to Kerry it wasnt real .. Ive known him long enough to know he is a deliverer. And yes, he saw major battle in Vietnam, killing. As disgusting as that was, he spoke against it way back in 1973. Why vote for a charlatan when you can vote for a real man ? But then again, I know I cannot vote for Kerry, because he is pro gay and pro abortion, so therefore I will vote for neither. This is why Ive told you all in previous posts that this form of government is no longer acceptable.