← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 12457 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2004-02-23
2004-02-23 00:18 | User Profile
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005!
**The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!** - (Carl F. Worden list)
[url]http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php[/url]
[url]http://www.newnation.org/index2.html[/url]
US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
by Adam Stutz ? Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!
Reinstatement of the draft
Dear Friends and Family,
I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."
Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details and links follow.
If voters who currently support U.S. aggression abroad were confronted with the possibility that their own children or grandchildren might not have a say about whether to fight, many of these same voters might have a change of mind. (Not that it should make a difference, but this plan would among other things eliminate higher education as a shelter and would not exclude women -- and Canada is no longer an option.)
Please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also write to your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and write to newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.
The Draft*
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: [url]http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html[/url] to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.
The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
[url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm[/url]
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
*This article by Adam Stutz is from the "What's Hot Off the Press" column of the newsletter of Project Censored, a media research group at Sonoma State University that tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list (more than 20 years running) of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported, or self-censored by the country's major national news media. The mission of Project Censored is "to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and why."
"What's Hot Off the Press" includes student synopses of articles currently being investigated for inclusion in the next Project Censored report. For more info and/or to receive Project Censored's newsletter, go to [url]http://www.projectcensored.org[/url], or email [censored]@sonoma.edu
2004-02-23 05:07 | User Profile
If ZOG keeps on its present path, as it is very likely to do unless a revolution breaks out, then a draft will have to be reinstituted sooner or later. Perhaps that will begin to wake people up when they see that they, too, could lose their children to the Zionist war machine. Who knows? Maybe things will get so bad that new draftees, rather than go fight for Israel, will decide to fight the enemy right here at home.
2004-02-23 08:57 | User Profile
This is excellent news for our side. It has the potential to bitch-slap a lot of the flag-wavin' sheeple who are gung ho for war - as long as their committment ends with watching the show on Faux News from the comfort & safety of their recliners. Perhaps these types will at long last begin to comprehend the neccessity of ceasing to be Shmuel's International Bully Boys when it's their asses or those of their children on the firing line.
2004-02-23 09:39 | User Profile
N.B.F. you are on target! There are plenty of flag on the vechicle type's here and none of their children are in the Service.. The draft will be a wake up call for the UPPER class Rotarian phony patriot$ etc..
2004-02-23 15:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It has the potential to bitch-slap a lot of the flag-wavin' sheeple who are gung ho for war - as long as their committment ends with watching the show on Faux News from the comfort & safety of their recliners. [/QUOTE]
N.B.F. - the King of Zing. :king:
2004-02-23 16:09 | User Profile
Well, many of us here have been predicting that a military draft is going to take place, probably right after the election, and if Bush wins the presidency again. I'm not sure what will happen if John (Kohn) Kerry wins the presidency. Now, with the news of Ralph Nader running in the 2004 election, it looks like Bush is destined to be in the White House until '08 and thus, a military draft is going to happen. This Admin. is letting things deteriorate in Iraq and Afghanistan on purpose, so as to fool the sheeple that we'll need more soldiers to win this war against "evil". The BushCons will tell the cattle/goy that victory is at hand, but we just need to flood the Middle East with 1,500,000 US soldiers to ensure the outcome. Of course, you won't hear that until 2005. Also, to make it more palatable for the goy, the draft may just coincide with US economic collapse and therefore, draw inspiration from those halcyon days of WWII, with Depression/joblessness leading to becoming a War hero fighting for your country. Notice how quiet things have gotten concerning Iraq and the wider war on terrorism. We're just one "terrorist attack" away from WWIII. If I had children aged 18-26 right now, I'd ship them to Iceland.
2004-02-23 18:04 | User Profile
Something tells me Country Joe's Fixin'-to-die-Rag won't be revived as groovy rebelliousness.
2004-02-23 21:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]names ending in -witz, -berg, -stein, or -mann, will find ways to avoid this draft even if it ever gets implemented.[/QUOTE]
I believe the -mann ending indicates a non-zhid, as opposed to -man.
2004-02-24 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Faux News [/QUOTE]
That was good, thanks
2004-02-24 15:24 | User Profile
Before any serious moves by the gov't to institute a draft, I would expect massive call-ups of inactive reservists (those who have completed active service but are still under contract). A significant number of these were employed in Desert Storm to round out that half-million man mobilization. A friend of mine was assigned to assist in retraining some of these particular IR troops during the buildup, and he said they were miserable almost to a man. It's reasonable to surmise that a draftee would be more miserable still. The army knows this of course, which is why they will resort to anything to avoid a draft. A example being the latest gimmick, the 18 month enlistment, which went into effect last fall. In any case, I'm certain we'll see more of this kind of stuff from the war machine before they start plucking kids from civilian life.
2004-02-24 22:43 | User Profile
Back about a million years ago (okay, so maybe not QUITE that long ago) when I was on active duty in the Navy, there was much discussion on re-instituting the draft -- which had never particulary concerned me once the military went voluntary. (Heck, Ijoined!)
I decided (as a staunch feminist -- all real men please forgive me for my blindness and stupidity! :sad: Or was it naivte and brainwashed little brain?) that it was fine to draft folks, including women, into the miltary (we weren't in any shooting wars just then -- late 70s). THEN I realized they meant MY younger sister -- then working her way through Julliard to become a professional musician (which she has become; a string player in a large-city orchestra). SHE would have to disrupt HER schooling, HER lifem HER plans to come play soldier/sailor/airman for a couple of years.
My immediate reaction: NO! NO! NO! They could NOT touch MY sister! It was enough that they had ME; I joined willingly. I was strong enough (I thought, now I know better) to do whatever was required of me!
I have sent the starting article in this thread to my older sister -- the Ghandian pacifist vegetarian married to the black man :disgust: ) whose son is just reaching 16 or 17... If she reacts as per the usual, which I expect, she will attack ME for the coming future. {sigh} Okayfine...
But MOST people won't make the link: a re-instituted draft and MY son, MY daughter, MY nephew, the kid who mows MY lawn! They will, as we always do, think it only happens to "someone else."
And you get Toby Keith and his ilk (and his fans) (although it looks like HE may be waking up a little bit...), who suggest that WHEREVER "our" govt sends soldiers, they need to go willingly and die if necessary for whatever purpose; those folks will NOT think: "oh, if you get drafted you should refuse to serve in the WRONG wars!"
2004-02-25 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I'm not sure what will happen if John (Kohn) Kerry wins the presidency. Now, with the news of Ralph Nader running in the 2004 election, it looks like Bush is destined to be in the White House until[/QUOTE]
I disagree; Nader is running as an independent and will be lucky to make the ballot in 20 states. Additionally, even if he made it onto the 43 states plus DC that he was on last time, he'd be luck to get a quarter of the 2.7% he scored back then; leftists are more interested in beating Bush than they are in making an ideological statement. I'd like to vote for Nader myself, in part because Kerry is almost as unpalatable as Dumbya), and as I doubt there's much danger Bush will carry California, but I really doubt he'll make the ballot here.
2004-02-25 03:27 | User Profile
I'll be 27 on June 22, so I'll likely escape this.
It is a shame that the flower of our nation's youth is about to be sacrificed for one of Izzy's Wars. I'll have particular contempt for those (hopefully few) among my generation who will consider this coming draft a "patriotic duty" and who see it as a positive, instead of the shaft and sham that it is.
2004-02-25 03:57 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar
Yes, I am glad we are most likely safe.
It is hard to tell how people will react. I think many people will see it for the sham it is. Some good old style draft riots might be a good thing.
[QUOTE]I'll be 27 on June 22, so I'll likely escape this. It is a shame that the flower of our nation's youth is about to be sacrificed for one of Izzy's Wars. I'll have particular contempt for those (hopefully few) among my generation who will consider this coming draft a "patriotic duty" and who see it as a positive, instead of the shaft and sham that it is. [/QUOTE]
2004-02-25 05:50 | User Profile
I was of military age during the Viet Nam draft. Lucky for me I was in school and got a high lottery number. Now, the world works differently. Now, it is all about Isreali security.
Myself, my son and grandson have all taken the pledge. We will not fight in the Near East for any reason. Fighting in the Near East is simply fighting for Isreal, so Isrealis don't have to do so. We will not go.
And since I was around last time, I know how to make the most out of "NO". In this case you say the magic word over and over and over again. The magic word is "Isreal". The US government hates its citizens using that word in vain.
Remember Iran-Contra? When the shit hit the fan and we learned the Isrealis were involved, the Congress halted events and adopted a code system. Each country had a code letter, "country A, country B, country C, etc. so that the word "Isreal" would not keep coming up in a negative light. Exposing Isreal in a negative light is how to fight this draft.
2004-02-25 13:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Maybe so, though even people who have lost family members in Iraq seem to be brainwashed into parroting the media line "they died for a good and noble cause" (or at least those are the ones they show us). But irrespective of that, we all know that 20-something kids who come from positions of wealth and power, or have names ending in -witz, -berg, -stein, or -mann, will find ways to avoid this draft even if it ever gets implemented.[/QUOTE]
But even that's good for us, because this time the Kosher Krew will be for the war, for the draft. At least in the main.
I don't see any new Jerry Rubins or Abby Hoffmans on the horizon (or John Kerrys, for that matter).
This will be just another vector forcing the Tribe to show its face.
At least, so it would seem to me.
I realize, of course, that there's an element of wishful thinking in my analysis; i.e. guys named Rubin and Hoffman made the 1960's what they were, and with them on the other side I'm not at all certain that our guys will even have the mental capacity to recognize the real parties in interest to their shipment to Iraq (Iran? Syria?). But hope springs eternal, as they say.
In any event, it's more fuel for the fire, and that's gotta be good for us.
Walter
2004-02-25 13:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SchwarzeSonne]I was of military age during the Viet Nam draft. Lucky for me I was in school and got a high lottery number. Now, the world works differently. Now, it is all about Isreali security.
Myself, my son and grandson have all taken the pledge. We will not fight in the Near East for any reason. Fighting in the Near East is simply fighting for Isreal, so Isrealis don't have to do so. We will not go.
And since I was around last time, I know how to make the most out of "NO". In this case you say the magic word over and over and over again. The magic word is "Isreal". The US government hates its citizens using that word in vain.
Remember Iran-Contra? When the shit hit the fan and we learned the Isrealis were involved, the Congress halted events and adopted a code system. Each country had a code letter, "country A, country B, country C, etc. so that the word "Isreal" would not keep coming up in a negative light. [B]Exposing Isreal in a negative light is how to fight this draft[/B].[/QUOTE]
Perfect.
That was beautiful.
I can hardly wait to start defending draft resisters in court.
Should keep me busy.
Walter
2004-02-25 15:47 | User Profile
I wouldn't get into Draft Riot mode just yet. Don't make the mistake of projecting future events based on the most recent historical example, in this case, Vietnam.
Observe which side the IP is on this time around. Their media control and political influence helped ensure that the anti-war and anti-draft activists of the 1960's were shielded from the kinds of repressive measures they could have expected during earlier periods.
Any situation with a draft and the USA fighting WWIII in the Arab world on Israel's behalf, is going to be a situation in which draft resisters will be treated more like draft resisters were treated in WWII than they were treated during the Vietnam War.
Expect the anti-war and anti-draft activists to be painted as terrorists; expect the Federal government to treat any attempt to resist the draft as a criminal conspiracy, or even sedition. Remember the Great Sedition Trial during WWII, used to target FDR's isolationist critics.
Imagine someone like Michael "Savage" heading a Federal task force charged with prosecuting "terrorists and terrorist sympathizers" and "anti-semitic draft dodgers".
Expect the flag waving boobies to buy into this scenario, at least initially.
2004-02-25 17:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]I wouldn't get into Draft Riot mode just yet. Don't make the mistake of projecting future events based on the most recent historical example, in this case, Vietnam.
Observe which side the IP is on this time around. Their media control and political influence helped ensure that the anti-war and anti-draft activists of the 1960's were shielded from the kinds of repressive measures they could have expected during earlier periods . . . Expect the flag waving boobies to buy into this scenario, at least initially.[/QUOTE]
Well put.
This will be much uglier than anything in the 60's, I think. And expect no quarter from the media, which backed the anti-war movement 40 years ago.
Waco and Ruby Ridge prove that the rules of engagement have changed.
Walter
2004-02-25 18:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I disagree; Nader is running as an independent and will be lucky to make the ballot in 20 states. Additionally, even if he made it onto the 43 states plus DC that he was on last time, he'd be luck to get a quarter of the 2.7% he scored back then; leftists are more interested in beating Bush than they are in making an ideological statement. I'd like to vote for Nader myself, in part because Kerry is almost as unpalatable as Dumbya), and as I doubt there's much danger Bush will carry California, but I really doubt he'll make the ballot here.[/QUOTE]
Point well taken Kevin, thanx. Kerry is almost as unpalatable as W, but just an inkling less demagogic, so I'm gonna hope Kerry wins. I don't know if I'm going to vote in Nov.....but I might pull the lever for Kerry because I despise Bush and his henchmen so much. The US Police State has put the rubber to the road with the Patriot Act and other draconian measures in order to meet the expected rage when the draft is reinstituted. The US Police State will make examples of dissenters by utterly obliterating them by using force yet unseen. Sad but true....if Bush is (s)elected again.
2004-02-25 19:26 | User Profile
I think it's more important that we present the idea that there is NO difference, since there isn't any difference that isn't just cosmetic. Any difference in policies only reflects the evolution or shift in tactics of the same old agenda. And the more disillusioned people become with the choices they've made in the past, the better a picture of both political parties as stooges of the same men-behind-the-curtain is received. If anything, the bouncing back and forth between "conservatives" and "liberals" just fuels the illusion of difference. It renews peoples' interest in irrelevant and cosmetic issues.
Reject them all and encourage others to do the same. For every horribleness that is pointed to on one side, expose its comparable partner on the other side.
2004-02-28 18:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Maybe so, though even people who have lost family members in Iraq seem to be brainwashed into parroting the media line "they died for a good and noble cause" (or at least those are the ones they show us). But irrespective of that, we all know that 20-something kids who come from positions of wealth and power, or have names ending in -witz, -berg, -stein, or -mann, will find ways to avoid this draft even if it ever gets implemented.[/QUOTE]
Young Joe Shmuck, on the other hand, faces prison and economic privation for refusing to take the oath.
2004-03-01 06:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]Reject them all and encourage others to do the same. For every horribleness that is pointed to on one side, expose its comparable partner on the other side.[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
I carry on an email correspondence with my siblings, many of whom are dyed-in-the-wool liberals.
They're pretty freaked out by some of the things I say.
I've found that appeals to Catholics on the abortion and sodomite marriage issues is unavailing, because - well, actually, I never really did understand that.
The thing that does work with them, albeit to a limited degree, is to point out the class similarities between Shrub and Kohn (Kerry). Both are from wealthy, powerful families. Both went to Yale. In fact, I believe that both were members of the ultra-elite Skull & Bones fraternity.
I find that the most effective argument is that all parties are controlled by a tiny elite that they play off each other, and Democrat Clinton's welfare cuts and Republican Shrub's welfare increases prove that there is no major difference between the two and that the policies will always be the same no matter if Tweedledee replaces Tweedledum or not. Give them the class argument - it seems to be the only one that has any traction with them.
But, as I said even that's limited. The problem is that like Paul Gottfried points out in his latest book, nobody is questioning the legitimacy of the entitlement programs anymore and the entire political process has devolved into a power grab for a larger share of the federal budget. Questions of state are little discussed now.
For example, the issues that really animites my many sisters isn't the murder of children through illegal abortion or the destruction of marriage through legal recognition and protection of perversion, and it isn't the trampling of our sovereignty with mass illegal immigration or the waging of illegal wars (that's not even on their radar screen). The issues that really get their blood boiling is the availability of health insurance, home maternity leave, increased teacher's salaries (two of them are teachers, the rest of them are in the medical professions) and so forth. By just addressing those issues, my sisters were willing to overlook WJC's shortcomings (including credible allegations of rape) so long as he delivered those goodies.
Giving women the vote and any voice outside the home beyond the role of school teachers and medical personnel was a fatal error, IMHO. It really was. Women have done more than any other group to turn the political process into a validation procedure for their personal choices.
Walter
2004-03-02 02:56 | User Profile
**Giving women the vote and any voice outside the home beyond the role of school teachers and medical personnel was a fatal error, IMHO. It really was. Women have done more than any other group to turn the political process into a validation procedure for their personal choices.
Walter**
You ain't talkin' trash, brother. Most women simply don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't affect them, right now. " 'The country?' 'The race?' Yeah, yeah, whatever. Maybe you should try Prozac...." They adhere more closely than anyone to the jew-decreed line, and imagine themselves to be free-thinkers for doing so.
Is it possible to get that particular feline back into the sack? I don't know - but if the opportunity to do so ever does present itself, it must not be missed. Failing that, all we can do is find a way to create the White media that alone can de-jeww their malleable minds. They can easily be herded with slick, relentless propaganda - most have no really firm opinions anyway; it's all just another form of fashion with them. Remember: As a result of 40 years of "You evil redneck scum!" jewsmedia hammering, girls who had once screamed "Niggers out!" when Uncle Shmuel crammed them into Southern schools at bayonet point would weepingly beg the smirky blacks for "forgiveness" as old ladies.
One of our goals is to make sure this generation of airheads grabs the Kleenex in years to come.
2004-03-02 03:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You ain't talkin' trash, brother. Most women simply don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't affect them, right now. " 'The country?' 'The race?' Yeah, yeah, whatever. Maybe you should try Prozac...." They adhere more closely than anyone to the jew-decreed line, and imagine themselves to be free-thinkers for doing so.[/QUOTE]
Very well stated. Women, in the vast majority of cases, seem to regard strong opinions on ANY subject, but particularly political matters (or anything else with an abstract element to it) as a sign of rudeness or mental illness. If I have to endure yet another prissy accusation of "incivility" (whether directed at me or someone else) for the offense of having a forthright opinion, rather than exhibiting a willingness to infinitely shift my views in order to "get to yes," I really AM going to start hating women and desiring to control them, the way the Feminists will accuse you of wishing to do, in the event you don't agree with them completely....sigh.
2004-03-02 16:18 | User Profile
Women being apparently self-absorbed, uninterested in any larger societal issues and valuing civility and "getting along" above all else is simply their basic programming. All of these traits are geared towards providing a stable environment and the resources for raising offspring. These normal and otherwise healthy drives have simply been perverted and steered towards destructive ends. There's no reason to hate them for it or attempt to change them (if anyone should be aware of the futility of fighting biology, it shoud be us). The most we can do is take back the culture and propaganda apparatus and allow these drives to express themselves in a more natural manner. I've noticed that a lot of men try to measure female behavior by a male yardstick, which leads to a helluva lot of confusion and frustration. The reverse applies as well.
They can easily be herded with slick, relentless propaganda - most have no really firm opinions anyway; it's all just another form of fashion with them. Remember: As a result of 40 years of "You evil redneck scum!" jewsmedia hammering, girls who had once screamed "Niggers out!" when Uncle Shmuel crammed them into Southern schools at bayonet point would weepingly beg the smirky blacks for "forgiveness" as old ladies.
Exactly. For every Carol Ward, you have dozens or hundreds of the "go along to get along" type, which, as I pointed out, is not necessarily reason for scorn, but such behavior must not be allowed to set policy. The wedge feminism drove between men and women was one of Team Schmuel's greatest 20th century accomplishments.
Men are also susceptible to slick propaganda, though. Those legions of White NBA fans have gotta come from somewhere.
2004-03-04 19:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You ain't talkin' trash, brother. Most women simply don't give a rat's ass about anything that doesn't affect them, right now. " 'The country?' 'The race?' Yeah, yeah, whatever. Maybe you should try Prozac...." [/QUOTE]
Yeah, bingo. Of course, that's all as it should be. They're supposed to be all about hearth and home. Raising kids and keeping their daddy on the straight and narrow. Let's not forget that this is the most essential work that there is. And it's work that men can't do.
They're supposed to do their jobs, and we're supposed to do our jobs. But that goodle "all are created equal" crap got in the way. Just ain't so, man.
A dude's one thing, a dudette quite another.
[QUOTE]Is it possible to get that particular feline back into the sack? [/QUOTE]
I think that they only hope we have is to build a virulent Christian Nationalist movement that can assume power after a general collapse.
Will it happen? Nah. Probably not. Basically, I think that we're shtupped, but hope springs eternal, as they say.
Walter
2004-03-04 21:41 | User Profile
Men are not fit to vote because their minds and bodies are controlled by Jew-controlled pornography and sports channels. They could care less about issues. Men are not capable of any type of independent thinking and stupidly fall for any ideology as long as free sex and porn is offered. They freely talk about not liking non-white women but when one puts up a scantly-clad Halle Bailey or Jennifer Lopez or non-white porno images in front of them they forget any racial consciousness they had and instead become race-mixers in their hearts and may even seek out encounters with the real thing. They are so stupid that many think Asian women are beautiful and are preferred to their own women. They also too stupid to realize that their standards of beauty, a thin skeleton covered with skin, are brainwashed into their heads by the Jew-Gay controlled fashion and media industry which glorifies women who look like little boys rather the fleshy women who were preferred by painters before the 20th century because they valued fertility. Also men commit the majority of crimes in society. Who commits the most murders? The most robberies, armed and otherwise? And almost all sex crimes against women, men, and children? The answers to all questions are men. They do not want pornography and prostitition outlawed and could care less what it does to women and children who are victims of it. And men are too stupid to realize that they are the real victims and losers, for they don't realize that they are as hooked into porn and prostitution as any druggie is into his drugs and can't go without a fix for long. Instead, they define their reckless sexual behavior as manliness and blame women for their weakness but when their female relatives and friends are victims of another man's reckless behavior they are up in arms against the man who violated their women, forgetting the other women they themselves had violated and ruined in the past.
I am sure ( or hope) that most of you here do not fit any of the above descriptions. I am sure that you are offended about what I wrote but all of it can be verified by searches on the internet. You need to remove the logs in your own eyes before you can comment on the logs in others' eyes.
The fact is that just because a few white women are stupid enough to date black men and don't care about issues and are capable of being brainwashed doesn't there are many like me who do care about the issues and are not brainwashed and puke at the thought of being with a non-white man.
I want to ask you:
Who would you rather vote, a man who fits some of the description above or a woman like me who can think and weigh the issues?
If men are incapable of being brainwashed as some of you hint above, then how do you explain then many male liberals around, most of whom do vote?
If women are so easily brainwashed, then why did God give us the primary caregiver responsibility? Homemaking and motherhood is not for the brainless and brainwashed. I can say this because I have worked both on the marketplace and at home.
If you can produce evidence that I personally am brainwashed, please post it here.
A last comment: If all the women that some of you are meeting do indeed fall into the brainless and brainwashed catagory, then I suggest that you get out and find some other women. Or better yet...
Since the enemy has "brainwashed" so many women into not thinking and lusting after black men, why don't some of you use the enemy's techniques against them and brainwash the dumb females back into the fold? Win their hearts and votes back. But first, most white men need to get over the brainwashing that their manhood is emasculated.
And for those men here who are dating, I suggest that you don't talk about anti-suffrage views with your dates because if you do, she will assume that you don't like women and just want a doormat and it would be your last date with her.
2004-03-05 00:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Men are not fit to vote because their minds and bodies are controlled by Jew-controlled pornography and sports channels.[/QUOTE]
While this statement is intended, I suspect, as a sort of parody of previous posts, it never-the-less contains more than a grain of truth. American MEN are clearly not capable of self-government, anymore than are American women, just for different reasons (an ideal world probably wouldn't be run on ther basis of popularity contests/elections anyway). Its just more obvious in the case of the women and will always be more of an issue, since it wasn't until 1919 that the people who currently work for the Jews managed to give women the vote....
[QUOTE]They freely talk about not liking non-white women but when one puts up a scantly-clad Halle Bailey or Jennifer Lopez or non-white porno images in front of them they forget any racial consciousness they had and instead become race-mixers in their hearts and may even seek out encounters with the real thing.[/QUOTE]
This is, of course, entirely true. While Halle (sic?) Berry and Jennifer Lopez don't strike me as very sexually appealing, Ive seen a lot of Hispanic women here in California that do. That's one reason why we need racial separation; because men (not all, just most) will always seek to copulate with willing females who are attractive. It'd be much more convenient for us WN men if all non-White women were as ugly as the average Samoan bitch, but alas, that is not always the case....
[QUOTE]1. Who would you rather vote, a man who fits some of the description above or a woman like me who can think and weigh the issues?[/QUOTE]
A woman like you, obviously. You would, by the way, have a better chance of getting elected by an all-male electorate, I suspect. That's the point; women are virtually all centrists. Men, whether on the right or the left, are much more likely to vote for someone who takes strong stands on the issues, rather than just the tall, non-bald milquetoast of the week who blathers on about "the children," while simultaneously pursuing policies designed to destroy our childrens' future. On a related note, according to public opinion surveys, the percentage of women who get "all or most" of their news from television is MUCH higher (more than double) the rate for men. The percentage of women who think getting all one's news from television is a good idea is also more than double that of men. If you suggest that television news is biased, slanted and incomplete, the dominant male reaction to this is that you are pointing out something that is obvious, while the dominant female reaction is that you are a trifle paranoid. This naturally breeds frustration among men....
2004-03-05 01:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]While this statement is intended, I suspect, as a sort of parody of previous posts, it never-the-less contains more than a grain of truth. American MEN are clearly not capable of self-government, anymore than are American women, just for different reasons ....[/QUOTE]
Not to slam my urban brethren(there are always exceptions)I'd edit that to say "urbanized" men and "urbanized" women. Sure, there are exceptions, and less of the US is rural, as Jews bulldoze everything in site and build their crackerbox homes. Losing the agrarian culture in the US has been a terrible loss. We'll pay for it as we become more dependent on Cailifornia(mostly muds), China and Brazil for our food.
But, the rural areas(particularly the rural south) are still where rational thought rules most. One reason it hasn't gotten worse than it is, the rural people, the way they vote, and their guns. A 77 year old farmer gave me a little instruction the other day, "sometimes you just gotta put a little heat to them, know what I mean?" Yeah, I know what he means.
2004-03-05 05:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE]While this statement is intended, I suspect, as a sort of parody of previous posts, it never-the-less contains more than a grain of truth. [B]American MEN are clearly not capable of self-government,[/B] anymore than are American women, just for different reasons (an ideal world probably wouldn't be run on ther basis of popularity contests/elections anyway). [/QUOTE]
I agree with that. Indeed, the fact that men even allowed their women the franchise in the first place proves their lack of spine beyond all doubt.
See the film "About Schmidt" if you haven't done so yet. Keep in mind as you watch it that Schmidt is the best we have.
No, the Republic is over, and we have to accept that. There's little left to even salvage from the great experiment that was America.
Our task is to create a movement of white, Christian American nationalists who can assume power after the Crunch. It's not much of a chance (pretty outside, in my opinion) but I think it's the only one we have.
Walter
2004-03-05 14:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] See the film "About Schmidt" if you haven't done so yet. Keep in mind as you watch it that Schmidt is the best we have. Walter[/QUOTE]
WY, yes, good point. Schmidt sat on the toilet just to piss; potty-trained by his wife. When she's gone, he becomes a man again. Schmidt despises his future son-in-law at first but then becomes somewhat sympathetic, realizing that he is headed for the same "training" in the future. He allows the marriage to happen, although he sees it's most likely demise in the future. When men fail, everything fails.
2004-03-06 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]WY, yes, good point. Schmidt sat on the toilet just to piss; potty-trained by his wife. When she's gone, he becomes a man again. Schmidt despises his future son-in-law at first but then becomes somewhat sympathetic, realizing that he is headed for the same "training" in the future. He allows the marriage to happen, although he sees it's most likely demise in the future. When men fail, everything fails.[/QUOTE]
For me, the climax of "About Schmidt" is when he stops his Winnebago at a rest stop on the highway someplace in Nebraska on his way back to Omaha from his daughter's wedding in Denver. He sees a monument to the pioneers on a footbridge across the highway that says something like "the cowards didn't come, the weak died on the way. Only strong and brave survived to become the Pioneers."
The question posed by the film is, IMHO, how in the world did we get from the tough Germans, Scandanavians, Irish and others who settled the Great Plains to the hapless Schmidt in just a couple of generations?
I think that the film tries to answer this question by underscoring again and again our lack of any unifying high culture that can bring order to our souls and a meaning to our lives outside work and shopping, shopping and work. Saving a lifetime to raise only one child in the great hope of spending a few years behind the wheel of a Winnebago one can really be proud of. (Ahoy!)
Think of the wedding in a church with burnt orange carpeting, the sacharine wedding songs sung out of tune, the sock-hop wedding party dancing to trite hits from the 1970's - the Middle West is portrayed as a gigantic spiritual desert filled with shopping malls and very harmless people who are incapable of defending themselves, like that Cheesehead couple from Eau Claire, Wisconsin he met in the campground.
And I think that's the right diagnosis.
We lost our culture. We have no sense of beauty and proportion. But then again, all culture comes from cult. The problem - the real key - is understanding that the cheesy drive-in church and its greeting card sentimentality and embrace of the tawdriness of Wal-Mart lies at the center of our spiritual disease.
The Spitfire Grill arrived at similar conclusions, IMHO.
Which is why I always say that there's nothing wrong with us that the Latin Tridentine High Mass won't solve.
Walter
2004-08-04 09:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Men are not fit to vote because their minds and bodies are controlled by Jew-controlled pornography and sports channels. Do you mean to imply that women are any less obsessed with pornography and sports? Nielsen[size=-1]/NetRatings[/size] reports that about one in three consumers of online porn is a woman. This is even more telling since men are still more computer and internet oriented in general. [size=1]"The editors of Today's Christian Woman, an evangelical magazine, had heard anecdotes of churchgoing women getting hooked on pornography, so they conducted a survey asking readers of their online newsletter if they had intentionally visited porn sites. Thirty-four percent said they had." [url="http://atheism.about.com/b/a/039939.htm"]http://atheism.about.com/b/a/039939.htm[/url][/size] Likewise, many "adult" video shops report that just as many, sometimes more, women compared to men are buying their products.
Women are certainly no less sexually-driven and perverted than men. As for sports, there are countless legions of female sports fans. Oh, did you ever notice how easy it is for sports stars to get sex from women?
Men are not capable of any type of independent thinking and stupidly fall for any ideology as long as free sex and porn is offered. This feminist stereotype of men is interesting. If men are so sex obsessed, why is it that 99% of patent-holders are male? Funny how men can do all that inventing, if all they think about is sex. Funny how men have produced so much great art and architecture, and women so little, if men are the more shallow sex. I do not see many men dressing in skimpy outfits, and the ones who do are effeminate (woman-ish). They also too stupid to realize that their standards of beauty, a thin skeleton covered with skin, are brainwashed into their heads by the Jew-Gay controlled fashion and media industry which glorifies women who look like little boys rather the fleshy women who were preferred by painters before the 20th century because they valued fertility. It is women who are perverted enough to buy into these trends, cruel enough to impose the same on their daughters, and vicious enough to ostracize those rare peers who resist. It is women who are shallow enough to dress in sleazy outfits and masochistic enough to thereby provoke rape. Yet despite all this slutty provocation, it is rare for (white) men to become rapists. If (white) men are so lust-driven, why do so few ever commit rape under normal circumstances?
Also men commit the majority of crimes in society. Who commits the most murders? The most robberies, armed and otherwise? And almost all sex crimes against women, men, and children? The answers to all questions are men. This is false and misleading. It is an established fact that women commit more shoplifting. Wives are just as likely as husbands to commit spousal battery. Women are no less likely to commit adultery though they are more likely to lie about it. Women do commit a great deal of sex crime, though feminist propaganda like yours makes it far easier for them to get away with perversion. Women are much more likely to commit murder. However, women direct their murderous rage mainly against the weakest among us: their own unborn children. This is due to women's general cowardice and lack of intelligence. Blacks are also less likely than whites to commit certain crimes, but this is not due to greater virtue. Likewise, women commit some crimes with lower frequency due to their lower average courage and intelligence.
They do not want pornography and prostitition outlawed and could care less what it does to women and children who are victims of it. Most prostitutes have female pimps (madams). Many of the most sadistic pornographers (i.e. Suze Randall, Lizzie Borden, Susie Bright) are actually female. Carol Queen extols the virtues of bestiality yet she is certainly no man. As already noted, women are major consumers of pornography. Women also use prostitutes in significant numbers: [size=1]Black male prostitutes have become so popular with high-society ladies that some escort services have started importing them from Jamaica and Nigeria, a university researcher said yesterday. [...] Thai male prostitutes, however, remain popular with Japanese women who fly to Phuket to take advantage of their "cheap" services and their impressive desire to please, he said. [url="http://www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=2&id=62558&usrsess=1"]http://www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=2&id=62558&usrsess=1[/url] The long-perpetrated image of the black man as a sexual toy continues to flourish as the niche market for black male prostitutes in Thailand booms. [url="http://www.msuspokesman.com/news/2002/11/08/WorldNews/Thai-Female.Elite.Demand.Black.Gigolos-318113.shtml"]http://www.msuspokesman.com/news/2002/11/08/WorldNews/Thai-Female.Elite.Demand.Black.Gigolos-318113.shtml[/url] [/size] Why do we rarely hear about these facts? Because feminists love to promote the myth that women are angelic creatures devoid of lust, while men are brute beasts enslaved to their own passions. Sadly, some misguided conservatives buy into this nonsense because they want to believe their own daughters are saints.
Truth must take precedence over flattery. It is time to face the facts. One of these is that women have all the vices commonly ascribed to men but none of the virtues.
2004-08-04 13:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Do you mean to imply that women are any less obsessed with pornography and sports? Nielsen/NetRatings reports that about one in three consumers of online porn is a woman. This is even more telling since men are still more computer and internet oriented in general. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Likewise, many "adult" video shops report that just as many, sometimes more, women compared to men are buying their products. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The editors of Today's Christian Woman, an evangelical magazine, had heard anecdotes of churchgoing women getting hooked on pornography, so they conducted a survey asking readers of their online newsletter if they had intentionally visited porn sites. Thirty-four percent said they had."[/QUOTE]
Your statistics still prove that men are still the major consumers of porn.
[QUOTE]Women are certainly no less sexually-driven and perverted than men. As for sports, there are countless legions of female sports fans. Oh, did you ever notice how easy it is for sports stars to get sex from women? [/QUOTE]
There are many more male sports fans than female sports fans. Yes, it is easy for male sports stars and any other "alpha" males to get sex. That is a fact from the beginning of time. It was easy for sports stars to get sex from women before there were "legions of female sports fans". Have you heard of the BMOC?
[QUOTE]This feminist stereotype of men is interesting. If men are so sex obsessed, why is it that 99% of patent-holders are male? Funny how men can do all that inventing, if all they think about is sex. Funny how men have produced so much great art and architecture, and women so little, if men are the more shallow sex. I do not see many men dressing in skimpy outfits, and the ones who do are effeminate (woman-ish). [/QUOTE]
Well, they have to make money to pay for the wives and prostitutes that give them sex. White males have produced much of what you say but who was behind most of these great men? Women- their mothers, wives, friends, etc. The fathers of these great men did not mate with inferior women. Why white women so little? 1) Because they were not allowed in the pipelines to develop and show their talents and genius. 2) Someone had to be mothers. 3) I admit it. Men are more driven. It is great talent and genius plus drive that produces Mozarts and Newtons. Men not dressing in skimpy outfits? You need to look at MTV. You need to get out and look around. You don't notice men dressing in skimpy outfits because you are not attracted to men. If you were, you would notice. There are, believe me.
[QUOTE]It is women who are perverted enough to buy into these trends, cruel enough to impose the same on their daughters, and vicious enough to ostracize those rare peers who resist. It is women who are shallow enough to dress in sleazy outfits and masochistic enough to thereby provoke rape. Yet despite all this slutty provocation, it is rare for (white) men to become rapists. If (white) men are so lust-driven, why do so few ever commit rape under normal circumstances? [/QUOTE]
I agree that women who buy into these trends are perverted also. But you still don't answer my question? Why do white men let Jewish pornographers control their standards of beauty and make them attracted to boyish-looking girls. If you go back to the great white artists before this century that you admire, you will see that the majority of women that they painted or sculpted had curves and would be considered very overweight today. Flesh represented fertility. These men would not waste their hours of work over something that they thought was ugly.
As for rape, white men are more controlled in their lust than non-whites. I agree.
2004-08-04 14:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE]This is false and misleading. It is an established fact that women commit more shoplifting. [/QUOTE]
As for female shoplifting: [url]http://www.co.ba.md.us/Agencies/police/media/bb30.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Statistically, according to retail consultant Robert L. DiLonardo, gender plays a key role in what will be stolen in a particular store. For instance, men will typically be found in auto parts stores, while women will frequent grocery stores. This same study pointed to men as making up 55% of arrested shoplifters while women came in at 44%. However, women steal more per trip when shoplifting.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Wives are just as likely as husbands to commit spousal battery.[/QUOTE]
Statistics, please? I still think men still lead here also.
[QUOTE]Women are no less likely to commit adultery though they are more likely to lie about it.[/QUOTE]
Statisitcs that I have read and believe say that the ratio of men to women committing adultery is 5 to 4. Men have a tendency to lie about having more sex partners and females about less. Still most here would agree that men lead in this area. I have never said women were angels in the matter.
[QUOTE]Women do commit a great deal of sex crime, though feminist propaganda like yours makes it far easier for them to get away with perversion. Women are much more likely to commit murder. [/QUOTE]
I don't use feminist propaganda. The FBI crime report refutes each of these statements. Read it and weep. [url]http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm[/url] The only crime that women lead in is prostitution and sadly, even in that crime, men are not far behind. And if being a john is a crime, men would lead also.
[QUOTE]However, women direct their murderous rage mainly against the weakest among us: their own unborn children. This is due to women's general cowardice and lack of intelligence.[/QUOTE]
What about the fathers of these murdered children? They are cowards also in running from their responsibility and paying for their children's deaths. I agree both are cowards but what does intelligence have to do with it?
[QUOTE] Blacks are also less likely than whites to commit certain crimes, but this is not due to greater virtue. Likewise, women commit some crimes with lower frequency due to their lower average courage and intelligence. [/QUOTE]
According tothe book, "The Bell Curve", it is people of lower intellegence who commit the most crimes, so your statement about blacks is correct. If your statement about women was correct, then why do men greatly outnumber women in crime if they do indeed have lower average intelligence and courage? For proof, see the FBI report.
2004-08-04 14:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Most prostitutes have female pimps (madams). Many of the most sadistic pornographers (i.e. Suze Randall, Lizzie Borden, Susie Bright) are actually female. Carol Queen extols the virtues of bestiality yet she is certainly no man.[/QUOTE]
I am not a student of pornography. You obviously are. Still, Jewish men mostly run pornography, and get most of the profits. These women and others are the exeptions and not the rule. As for madams, they still exist, but most protitutes work for crime sydicates run mostly by Jewish men.
[QUOTE]Women also use prostitutes in significant numbers: [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Black male prostitutes have become so popular with high-society ladies that some escort services have started importing them from Jamaica and Nigeria, a university researcher said yesterday. [...] Thai male prostitutes, however, remain popular with Japanese women who fly to Phuket to take advantage of their "cheap" services and their impressive desire to please, he said.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The long-perpetrated image of the black man as a sexual toy continues to flourish as the niche market for black male prostitutes in Thailand booms.[/QUOTE]
I and most of the posters here could care less about how much pornography and nonwhite male prostitutes that nonwhite women use. I am not surprised by your statistics. In fact, your statements shatter the illusions that nonracialist white males have about Asian women. You still have not proven that white women use male prostitutes in high numbers.