← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kevin_O'Keeffe
Thread ID: 15212 | Posts: 37 | Started: 2004-10-04
2004-10-04 16:31 | User Profile
My wife and I have yet to receive our sample ballots in the mail, but I was at a friend's home on Saturday evening and I happened to be perusing his. It seems that my candidate, for whom I had intended to vote, i.e. Mr. Ralph Nader, will not be appearing on the California state ballot (despite his having received over 3% of the vote in this state not only in 2000, but also in 1996, when he only scored 0.6% nationally). This is also despite the fact that the Reform Party, which has ballot status in California, has named Ralph Nader as their effective nominee. The Reform Party is not being permitted to field a candidate for President in California this year, depsite their lawful ballot status (which you'll just have to trust me about; I follow California state politics very closely and I am 100% certain they have not lost their ballot status, due to the fact that over 0.5% of all registered voters in California belong to the Reform Party, which is one of two ways of ensuring a party's status in this state).
I would sure like to know what sort of undemocratic chicanery the so-called "Democratic Party" has employed in order to keep a lawful political party and its nominee off the ballot, for fear it might take a slight edge off of Kerry's certain landslide victory here in the once-Golden State. It should be noted that Nader is appearing as the candidate of the Reform Party on the ballot of Florida and about a dozen other states (while in the others, he is appearing as an independent). Since it takes something like 400,000 verified signatures to appear as a state-wide independent candidate in California (more than you need if you want to run as a 3rd party candidate, incidentally), that option was never seriously pursued by Mr. Nader, for reasons of finance and logistics (which is exactly what our tyrants intend with their arcane and oppressive ballot access laws, which in many states, name the Democratic & Republican Parties outright, and simply grant them effective exemptions from the laws that all the other parties are require to obey, whilst the Democrats & Republicans are guaranteed permanent ballot access in all 50 states for as long as they want it, without even having to make an effort).
California has a very arcane and oppressive law governing write-in votes as well (oh, what a surprise!), so if I cast a write-in vote for Nader, it is extremely likely that this vote will not be counted. I guess I will have to vote for the irrelevant, however well-meaning, Michael Peroutka. I am not being permitted the option of registering an effective protest, it seems. I will vote for a man who's vote totals will go unreported. Thanks a lot, you worthless, slimey bastards in Sacramento and Washington (and lest we forget, Tel Aviv).
2004-10-04 16:43 | User Profile
So, you are not subscribing to Yggdrasil's pragmatic point of view that Whites should hold their noses and vote for Bush (or against Kerry)?
Petr
2004-10-04 16:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]So, you are not subscribing to Yggdrasil's pragmatic point of view that Whites should hold their noses and vote for Bush (or against Kerry)?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't aware Ygg was making such a recommendation. I don't know what his rationale would be, other than the tired, old Kerry-is-a-liberal argument, which is true, but easily refuted by the fact that Bush is a neo-"conservative," and a neo-"conservative" is worse. Perhaps he agrees with Walter on the whole worse-is-better thesis. In any event, I see it as a matter of principle that Bush must be denied a second term. If I lived in a swing state, I'd vote for Kerry.
2004-10-04 17:10 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red]- "I wasn't aware Ygg was making such a recommendation. "[/COLOR]
Yggdrasil opposes voting for candidates like Nader, who may be more honest and ideologically attractive, but who still don't have any real chance to win.
He thinks that it's just that same old "White" over-idealism - romantic but empty gesture - to vote for a certain loser instead of trying to minimize the damages by voting the lesser evil.
Here he explains why he thinks Kerry is worse, "in the grand picture":
[COLOR=Blue]"Originally Posted by MuadDib No, we have a duty as Whites "to make the best choose we can."
That "best choose," as encouraged by all WN leaders, is Anybody But Bush. [/COLOR]
(YGGDRASIL)
[COLOR=DarkRed]Nonsense, Muadib!
Kerry's supreme court choices will silence us, and Kerry's tax increases will clobber our folk!
Welcome to the ugly but real world! [/COLOR]
and:
[COLOR=Blue]Originally Posted by MuadDib Exactly. Anyone that could possibly vote for Bush, given his record, is rewarding treachery. [/COLOR] [COLOR=DarkRed]
Rewarding treachery??
I really do not understand this train of thought that says that Bush "betrayed" us.
We knew perfectly well that he was in Israel's pocket before he was elected the first time. We knew that his vision for America was a Spanish speaking majority Mexican nation.
Hell, even the paleo-conservatives understood very clearly that Bush's concept of "free enterprise" was to take a half mil loan from supporters, buy an interest in the Texas Rangers for the half mil, sign a bill into law as Governor that would subsidize a new stadium, and then sell his interest for 12 mil.
He has been your basic, dumb, Israel sucking, corrupt, pro-immigration sell-out right from the get-go!
So where is the betrayal?
He is doing precisely what he said he would do (with the notable exception of a humbler, gentler foreign policy)!
Kerry, on the other hand is running as the candidate of the inner party dominated anti-white racial coalition which has an explicit agenda of exploiting and exterminating our race.
The only conceivable rationale for a Kerry vote is that it might get so bad under his conscious attack that our fellow whites wake up.
Don't bet on it!
Betting that our fellow whites will wake up is a very dangerous gamble.
Wake up to what, exactly? Unless we have the means to educate them, it is at least equally probable that more misery will pursuade them to vote for an even stiffer dose of explicit anti-white poison - that the only way to end the misery is to go ahead and obliterate the white race quickly and get it over with.
Trusting your fellow whites to wake up by administering a stiffer dose of the poison is foolish. We will get more than sufficient misery with Bush.
I will hold my nose and vote for the bumbling fool over the conscious attacker.[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=153766&page=6&pp=10[/url]
and
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=153766&page=8&pp=10[/url]
Petr
2004-10-04 17:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I will hold my nose and vote for the bumbling fool over the conscious attacker[/QUOTE]
The flaw with this argument (on Ygg's part, not Petr's) is it assumes that Bush runs his own administration. On the contrary, that administration is being run by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and some others. Bush has very little to do with it, other than to assist in raising campaign funds from the solipsistic degenerates who dominate our multinational corporate gangster class. The orders will come from the Talmud, irrespective of which party wins. Kerry, however, is infinitely more likely to take a stand and refuse to invade Iran, by simple virtue of the fact that he will presumably have some influence over his own administration. We know what Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle will do after the election, along with Ariel Sharon, if left to their own devices, as they presently are. Plus, as I have stated before, denying Bush a second term is a simple matter of principle. He can not be re-elected.
2004-10-04 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I would sure like to know what sort of undemocratic chicanery the so-called "Democratic Party" has employed in order to keep a lawful political party and its nominee off the ballot, for fear it might take a slight edge off of Kerry's certain landslide victory here in the once-Golden State. [/QUOTE]
Don't you hate it when your forced to notice what a fraud the election system has become.
2004-10-04 17:36 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - " The flaw with this argument (on Ygg's part, not Petr's) is it assumes that Bush runs his own administration. On the contrary, that administration is being run by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and some others. Bush has very little to do with it, other than to assist in raising campaign funds from the solipsistic degenerates who dominate our multinational corporate gangster class. "[/COLOR]
I do not think that Ygg has any kind of illusions on this matter - you are underestimating him. He is apparently making some very cold calculations.
(Hey, he works as a stock market expert!)
[COLOR=Purple]"There are two areas in the next election that are supremely important to us:
Supreme court justices.
Kerry's huge tax increases targeted at middle class whites.
I am going to hold my nose and vote for the shrub."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=150972&page=5&pp=10[/url]
[COLOR=Purple]"The problem with the third party option is that we would be creating and then siphoning off a constituency that demands public validation of its racial views, thereby energizing our racial opponents and making participation in a coalition impossible.
It is a massive amount of work and effort just to precipitate a certain defeat and loss of all political power to our racial enemies. The IP loves it when we form third parties.
Better to discipline the worst Republican offenders with primary defeats and get their successors that we elect to pass laws we like and repeal laws we don't like."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=150972&page=3&pp=10[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Plus, as I have stated before, denying Bush a second term is a simple matter of principle. "[/COLOR]
This is EXACTLY that kind of quixotic idealism that Ygg is trying to weed out of us.
Petr
2004-10-04 17:40 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - "We know what Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle will do after the election, along with Ariel Sharon, if left to their own devices, as they presently are."[/COLOR]
Hey Kevin, if we REALLY coldly calculate this thing, it might be a good idea to let the neocons invade Iran. It would create a huge chaos, destabilize the status quo, and awaken and revolutionize lot of White people.
Walter Yannis here argues in the same manner - that it would be a GOOD thing on the long run to let the neocons follow their self-destructive instincts.
Petr
2004-10-04 17:43 | User Profile
I live in Ca Ca forina so whoever I vote doesn't matter. The electorate votes will surely go to Kerry anyways. So yeah, I think I can afford to "waste" my vote.
2004-10-04 18:21 | User Profile
Face REALITY, the wicked designs for America are going to be implemented no matter which puppet occupies the Oval Office. The US is going Third World whether you like it or not. Kerry and Bush will never stop it. Nader, Buchanan, Peroutka, Ah-nuld, Congress, the UN, et al will never stop it. Whites can't stop it.
Only God can help this country now and He might be fed up enough to give us what we deserve.
2004-10-04 18:27 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - " Only God can help this country now and He might be fed up enough to give us what we deserve. "[/COLOR]
That is true, but still, do not let the earthly conspiracies of wicked men to scare or depress you too much.
In the end, God will laugh at their puny plans (Psalms 2).
Petr
2004-10-04 19:05 | User Profile
Apparently, it "only" takes 153,805 signatures (of confirmed, registered voters within the state, who may only sign petition forms registered with whichever of the 58 counties they happen to reside) to run as an independent in California. Meanwhile, the Democrats and Repubicans can run for free. Yeah, that's fair.
2004-10-06 16:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]So, you are not subscribing to Yggdrasil's pragmatic point of view that Whites should hold their noses and vote for Bush (or against Kerry)?
Petr[/QUOTE]
I think that Ygg is not being true to his own theory in this.
At least if I understand it correctly.
Ygg seems to be saying that we're headed for a collapse (Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies, Elliot Wave Theory), and that this is the cause of great hope for us, since it will entail of necessity the collapse from the very complex quantum of Empire to the much less complex quantum of nation state. Inasmuch as the core of the American nation is white, Christian and English-speaking, collapse of the multicultural Empire can only redound to that nation's benefit.
It would seem to follow that we should hasten the collapse, as the overall Imperial trends are bad for us. Enforced multi-cult education in the schools. The inexorable destruction of the institutions of marriage (sodomite "marriage") and private property (asset forefeiture laws). The sooner the thing collapses, I would think, the better.
In accordance with Tainter's incisive analysis, collapse happens when societies undergo "stress vectors", which can take many different forms, such as natural disasters (drought ended the Asanazi culture in Arizona, for example), wars, bureacratic tyrrany, loss of ruling legitimacy of the elites in the eyes of the ruled, etc. The Roman Empire basically collapsed under its own weight due to a number of these factors, including especially loss of legitimacy (inability to pay people on time, inability to defend against foreign incursions). The American Empire can, too, provided that enough stress vectors are piled on. With an open border (oxymoron!) with Mexico making terror attacks easy for any foreign group with a little moxy, and with an unimaginable $50 trillion (yes, that's TRILLION with a "T") of unfunded obligations to citizens of various sorts (medicare, social security, welfare, education, healthcare), and with energy costs soaring (Tainter shows convincingly it's all about energy costs), it would appear that the American Empire is under critical stress.
Add to that the Elliot Wave Theory projections by Prechter (whom Ygg relies upon) that show that we're approaching a MAJOR shitstorn anyway just for cyclical reasons, and it would seem reasonable to suspect that we have the makings of a collapse of the American Empire.
As I've said before, I don't doubt that there's an element of wishful thinking in it, but it does provide a general plan of advance for us.
The invasion of Iran is a GOOD THING precisely because it would add enormous financial stresses to the already overstreched Empire. The war itself would be terribly expensive, and the current Iraq War indicates that these wars for oil drive up oil prices, which are now over $50.barrell, porjected by some analysts to exceed $60/barrell in the next few months. The invastion of Iran and the concomitant interruption of Iran's oil production would send prices even more ruinously higher.
In addtion, the war in Iran will be based on lies, which will be a blow against elite legitimacy as these things become known. We're already hearing strident calls that Neocon = Jew and that this war is being waged in the interests of Israel, wait until we get body bags back from the Tehran front to fan the flames of domestic miscontent. But a war with Iran will almost certainly entail a draft, which will prevent the middle class from ignoring the problem, fanning the flames into a conflagration. Those guys ain't a bunch of hapless Iraqi A-rabs. They'll fight like men possessed. They'll fight like the Vietnamese, Heaven help us.
We've also seen increased demands for real border enforcement even now, just wait until the Aryan Persians, unleash the terror cells they very probably have in place now among us. That will be a terrible blow to the legitimacy of our Jewish elites who gave us open borders in the eyes of the sheeple.
There are other reasons to favor this war with Iran, but the biggest one for me is that it will make our Marxist elites our best advocates. Just as Stalin learned in the later 1930's, if one wants the Russians to defend Russia, one must encourage them to do it qua Russians. People just don't get excited enough to lay down under a tank with a big grenade in the defense of abstracts like "socialism" or "democracy". They will, however, defend their nation. And so, like the USSR in the late 1930's, our own Eizensteins will be forced to create images of exactly why it's worth dying for a white, Christian, and English-speaking America.
It's all good, Dog.
I can't believe these morons don't see the mortal danger to themselves.
Actually, on second thought they probably do foresee this, but feel constrained by the dire need to protect Hive Central from an Aryan Persian H-Bomb.
In short, this looks increasingly like a Kosher version of a Greek tragedy inexorably working itself out. Hey, we already know how it ends. Why not enjoy the show?
I therefore fail to understand Ygg's thinking on this. Hey, I mean, I got the whole theory from him!!!!
Perhaps Ygg, who is an occasional contributor here, would care to comment.
Walter
2004-10-06 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed] - "Plus, as I have stated before, denying Bush a second term is a simple matter of principle. "[/COLOR]
This is EXACTLY that kind of quixotic idealism that Ygg is trying to weed out of us.[/QUOTE]
Do you think he's right to be engaged in such an undertaking?
In any event, I'm far from certain President Kerry will be making any Supreme Court appointments in the next four years. Bush was already supposed to have gotten to make one or two, but has he? Those people stay until they die (although in the case of John Paul Stevens, age 82....), so Ygg's first point is less compelling than he would have me believe. His second point, too, is somewhat weak, in that I don't envision any major tax increases being passed over the next four years. Even Klinton's tax increase of 1993 was actually rather modest, despite all the ludicrous, Limbaughite rhetoric about it being the "the biggest tax increase in American history" (I doubt it was in the top 10). The Republicans, even if they lose the White House AND the Senate, are still going to be in control of the House. They might let Bush take us into a 600 billion dollar annual deficit, but they won't be quite so submissive when a Democrat asks them to raise taxes.
2004-10-06 17:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Hey Kevin, if we REALLY coldly calculate this thing, it might be a good idea to let the neocons invade Iran. It would create a huge chaos, destabilize the status quo, and awaken and revolutionize lot of White people.
Walter Yannis here argues in the same manner - that it would be a GOOD thing on the long run to let the neocons follow their self-destructive instincts. [/QUOTE]
I'm very much aware of Walter's worse-is-better thesis, and while he may well be right, I'm not going to go about advocating evil, or refraining from opposing it, on the basis of some theoretical idea. I'm going to oppose evil - period. To encourage the neo-cons is to essentially BE a neo-con, as actions are what counts, rather than motives. I mean, what if things actually work out for the neo-cons and we encourage them all the way into the successful culmination of their New World Order? Then where will be? Answer: a domestic equivalent of Abu-Ghraib.
2004-10-06 17:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I can't believe these morons don't see the mortal danger to themselves.
Actually, on second thought they probably do foresee this, but feel constrained by the dire need to protect Hive Central from an Aryan Persian H-Bomb.[/QUOTE]
They must be truly terrified to be contemplating such a potentially, if not inevitably, ruinous course. Its funny how many people are against going to war with Iran, but ony in the sort of lax way they also oppose going to war with Syria, as if the two are even **REMOTELY[/B] equivalent. Iran is a highly-sophisticated nation (almost certainly the most advanced one between Japan and Europe, if we don't count Asiatic Russia and all the free stuff we've given Israel, thus giving it the outward appearance of a real nation, rather than a very well-funded encampment) with science, technology, industry (Hell, maybe even with a few nukes already!), a proud martial history and a strong religious devotion that doesn't shy away from the use of military force. People talk of invading Iran as if it would be sort of like invading Iraq, when in reality, it would be literally 100 times worse! I wonder if Wolfowitz and Perle wake up screaming in the night?
2004-10-06 17:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe] I mean, what if things actually work out for the neo-cons and we encourage them all the way into the successful culmination of their New World Order? Then where will be? Answer: a domestic equivalent of Abu-Ghraib.[/QUOTE]
That would suck, I freely admit.
But we have to view these things prospectively, and play our cards the best we can, asking God's guidance.
Ygg's analysis is cogent, and I for one find it convincing.
I see it as our best shot at winning. It's a risk, but it's a calculated risk, and in war (and this is war) calculated risk is the name of the game.
I say put all our chips on that number and spin the wheel.
Walter
2004-10-06 20:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]But we have to view these things prospectively, and play our cards the best we can, asking God's guidance.[/QUOTE]
Well you'll have to forgive me Walter, but I have a hard time gettin' my mind around it being God's guidance for Christians, or non-Christians for that matter, to advocate, argue for and in fact, work to see our nation fight in an unjust, immoral war in Iran where I'm sure thousands and thousands of innocents will die. Granted I'm no cynic and maybe my will to power is a little flabby, but can you walk me through that rationale?
2004-10-06 20:36 | User Profile
Yup, Tex.
I'm a bit torn by this issue.
I know that American or Israeli attack on Iran would do a lot to unstabilize the NWO/ZOG, and it could be a good idea to let the neocons self-destruct.
On the other hand, this idea reeks with calculating, Machiavellian wisdom of this world ...
[COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Teal]James 3:15: This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. [/COLOR] [/COLOR]
But then again, I remember from the Old Testament how God made pagan armies fight with and destroy each other and Israelites only had to stand aside and watch how it happened.
I think I need more guidance from the Holy Spirit to get a clear idea of what would be the more godly option here.
Petr
2004-10-06 20:50 | User Profile
Bush's position on immigration alone makes him unacceptable for any rational White to support. Kerry is also unacceptable. The only choice is not to vote, or to vote for a third party.
2004-10-06 21:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=solutrian]Bush's position on immigration alone makes him unacceptable for any rational White to support. Kerry is also unacceptable. The only choice is not to vote, or to vote for a third party.[/QUOTE]
That's my position, solutrian. If anything, I'll write in "none of the above." I want desperately to delegitimize our campaign in Iraq and I believe that Kerry getting elected would do that. Or at the very least end Republican support for it since it would have a Democrat calling the shots. But I simply cannot vote for a pro-sodomite and baby-killer like Kerry.
I'm sure I'll just stay home and tend to my family.
2004-10-06 22:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]People just don't get excited enough to lay down under a tank with a big grenade in the defense of abstracts like "socialism" or "democracy".[/QUOTE]
Walter! You mean you don't think that troops will charge with such a heroic battle cry on their lips like "For Israel and Oil!" Or "For democratic capitalism and 'free' trade!?!" :oh: :huh:
Goodness gracious, as our distinguished SecDef would say.
Seriously, I can't resist this:
Cheney Blames Democrats for High Oil Prices (!)
US Vice President Dick Cheney lambasted the Democrats on Tuesday for causing high petroleum prices.
I don't often find Dick Cheney amusing, but I fell off my sofa belly-laughing over this one.
Cheney, being an oil man, knows exactly why petroleum prices are high.
1) The Iraq War and the US mishandling of the aftermath have had a significant upward impact on petroleum prices.
a) The uncertainties of the Iraq situation (and remember that the US is rattling sabres at Iran periodically, too) are adding at least $10 a barrel to the price in speculation and anxiety. Since the price has been hovering around $40 a barrel, that is a good fourth of the price. That is, without an Iraq war (or with a more competent post-war management of the situation), the price would be only 3/4s of what it is now, right off the bat. If an American is paying $1.85 at the pump, it would be $1.39 without Cheney.
b) The continued sabotage of Iraqi oil pipelines and facilities have most often limited Iraqi exports to a million barrels a day, when before the war Iraq was exporting 2.5 million. About 76 million barrels are pumped each day in the world, but much of it is used by the producing country (as with Russia and China). Fewer countries have the ability to produce petroleum far beyond their own needs, so that it goes on the export market. These countries with a petroleum surplus are especially concentrated in the Middle East. The loss of Iraqi production is not a big factor in price (say 2%), but it comes on top of the uncertainty and speculation.
That puts the Cheney Premium on US gasoline prices at 27 percent!
2) The consolidation of the energy market in a few corporate hands has pushed up prices, and threatens to become worse. We already know that Enron, led by Bush's dear friend and patron, Ken Lay, ripped off California consumers deliberately.
3) Instead of taking steps to increase US energy efficiency in the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration has encouraged consumption. High consumption contributes to high prices. You might have expected the US to attempt to become more independent of Middle Eastern petroleum after 9/11, but the amount of petroleum the US imports from that region keeps rising. There are lots of things Americans could do to cut their oil dependence, including insulating more efficiently and striving for better automobile fuel efficiency. (Europe increased its energy efficiency by 33% from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s; these things can be done). Americans are only 5% of the world population, but use 26% of the world's energy, so conservation here would have a big impact.
4) There are other causes for the high prices right now, including decisions of the OPEC cartel (Cheney's friends), a strike in Nigeria, and the Russian government's dispute with Yukos Petroleum over $3 billion in unpaid back taxes. These crises are temporary and will pass, and the price will fall again. To my knowledge, the US Democratic Party is not involved in any of these crises. There is also a shortage of refineries, which has to do with decisions of the big energy corporations in the US; Cheney's friends, again. Reuters blames Chinese demand to some extent, but Chinese demand was also high in the late 1990s when the price of petroleum was in free fall.
It should also be said that primary commodity markets tend to have boom and bust cycles. When the price is high, marginal producers come on line, raising supply, which eventually then pushes the price down, so that they cannot continue to produce profitably. When enough producers are forced out, the supply shrinks, causing prices to rise again, to the point where the producers with higher costs can again profitably come on line. And so on and so forth.
It should come as no surprise that Cheney plays fast and loose with the facts, blaming the Democratic Party for things that are if anything Cheney's own fault. While he was CEO of Halliburton, , it at one point inflated its profit statement by 46%, and has just gotten a slap on the wrist by the SEC.
posted by Juan @ 8/4/2004 07:15:06 AM
[url]http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html[/url]
2004-10-07 01:28 | User Profile
please...tell me someone posting here is NOT voting for nader because they actually agree with him.
Peroutka is the man that should be our leader today. However, how can you be a leader of a a country that is divided as ours. We have lost and continue to loose our identiy. One hundred and fourty three years ago this country fought brother against brother, father against son...all regrettable, yet unavoidable. The same holds true today. We are plunging head first towards balkanization.
2004-10-07 02:14 | User Profile
I am still completely conflicted about the coming election. I'm not much of a believer in democracy, and I doubt that the suicidal course the nation is following will change no matter whom I vote for. That said, however, I see myself as having three main options: 1. Dumba$$ Dubya. I find Walter's worse-is-better thesis almost, but not quite, completely convincing, and Shrub would certainly do his level best to make the fit hit the shan. 2. Peroutka. I know there are concerns about his Reconstructionism (which I don't completely support) and his possibly-Marrano-Jew VP candidate, but the Constitution Party platform is the closest thing to common sense we're likely to see for a while. 3. Abstain. I could always simply refuse to take part in the scam that is elections in America. I would like to make a protest in some visible way, however, and non-voters are effectively completely ignored. I'm on the horns of a dilemma for sure.
2004-10-07 03:51 | User Profile
Even though Kerry has Jew ties with former SEC Chairman Rubin and NSA Sandy Berger, let me exemplify some fact. The Bush Regime owes no-one but the Warmongers. There is a true struggle WITHIN the Illuminati RIGHT NOW. A John Kerry presidency will be RECEPTIVE to what we want. Another term of George Bush II is beyond our ability to reach at all.
John Kerry is still a Massachusetts Senator. That means more than you think it does. It means Kennedy influence and it means Rhode Island and Yankee trust. Kerry is not an insolent swine like George Bush II. As a matter of fact, my Senator, Lincoln Chafee, who is Republican VOTED AGAINST the granting of giving Bush the ability to declare war on Iraq. He is a Republican and his father has connections ( John Chafee ) with the Pubs , but here we merge, hey, maybe we can just be Americans after all ???
The Bush Regime Has Sold America Dry. John Kerry not only knows it, he's worked the last 20 years against it.
Kerry is a much better vote for the White Man than Bush.
Bush is an insult to the Whie Man. His mere Presence at this time is extremely foul.
KERRY ALL THE WAY.
2004-10-07 04:15 | User Profile
why speak of the Dead ? Lincoln Chafee, son of John Chafee, voted AGAINST giving George Bush II authority to take military action upon Iraq. I personally shook John Chafee's hand, and he looked me in the eye. He was the embodiment of the Naval War College here in Newport. His son, who I personally can comment upon, but not give you the details here,who I disagree with upon other issues, still had the balls to stand against the Insanity Of BUSH II.
Think about it. TO STAND UP AGAINST BUSH / SHARON WAR and BEING A REPUBLICAN SENATOR. I am not commenting on anything other than this fact.
JOHN KERRY is just like this. He may be a Democrat, but he knows what its like to be the " Homeless Senator " .the media is not showing you the truth about John Kerry, he really was homeless [url]http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/carr1.htm[/url] from a Boston talk show host Make your own choices my friends. Kerry is man I admire.. Bush ? Admire ??
2004-10-07 04:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That's my position, solutrian. If anything, I'll write in "none of the above." I want desperately to delegitimize our campaign in Iraq and I believe that Kerry getting elected would do that. Or at the very least end Republican support for it since it would have a Democrat calling the shots. But I simply cannot vote for a pro-sodomite and baby-killer like Kerry.
I'm sure I'll just stay home and tend to my family.[/QUOTE]
Tex, I agree with you as you know, expressing myself here on OD for a long time. I personally cannot recommend voting for Kerry to my family, I want us to vote for and get them all out of there BUT we have to choose and I firmly believe that Kerry is a better choice for us. I will not vote for him, ( it doesn;'t matter, Rhode Island will vote Kerry 80 % anyway ) but those ETHICAL LIFE Issues are not something the Bush can improve upon either. I personally find Kerry's Pro-Life stance more convincing, he is Pro-Life, but according to the Law of the Land, he has to respect the Choice of a Woman to abort in her Body. This is a Sin which only God can PAY BACK. In other words, Tex, we have to LET THEM SIN. As sad as that is, when VIRTUE becomes the LAW, it is no longer VIRTUE, it is ONLY LAW.
2004-10-07 05:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Yup, Tex.
I'm a bit torn by this issue.
I know that American or Israeli attack on Iran would do a lot to unstabilize the NWO/ZOG, and it could be a good idea to let the neocons self-destruct.
On the other hand, this idea reeks with calculating, Machiavellian wisdom of this world ...
[COLOR=Blue][COLOR=Teal]James 3:15: This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. [/COLOR] [/COLOR]
But then again, I remember from the Old Testament how God made pagan armies fight with and destroy each other and Israelites only had to stand aside and watch how it happened.
I think I need more guidance from the Holy Spirit to get a clear idea of what would be the more godly option here.
Petr[/QUOTE]
The Holy Spirit TODAY is living in US !!!! US !!!! Not the US !! The biggest MISTAKE AMERICANS MAKE TODAY is to SPEAK of " WE " WE " WEe" do thi" aww But " We " THERE IS NO " WE " !! America is and always has BEEN OBSCENE in the eyes of OUR GOD. YOUR GOD. To think One Land Mass has God-Right over another is the CAUSE OF MANY WARS. STOP thinking of " We " unless you talk about us on Original Dissent, or other groups you are tightly alighned with. There is no " we " There is no righteous " America " , America was just a land mass waiting to be expoilted which it was... this is ALL anti-Scripture. [url]http://www.wwcr.com[/url]
2004-10-07 05:26 | User Profile
in my previous post i showed you all al ink from a year ago, dripping in media hate, and disgust that John Kerry made a sucess out of his life. Look back, look at the hatrred for him, the way the LEFT HATES HIM. THE JEWS HATE HIM. Now look at the real President. Introducing John Kerry By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 30 September 2004
Everyone knows John Kerry by now, right?
He's the tall guy who went to Vietnam and then wounded himself three times to get his medals, while simultaneously conning the bureaucracy of the Navy into giving him citations for valor. Or he's the guy who volunteered for Vietnam, and then volunteered for Swift Boat duty, and then was wounded three times while serving with distinction. He's the guy who opposed the war upon his return and thus became a traitor, or he's the guy who opposed the war upon his return and thus became a hero.
The John Kerry people know is a fellow of wealth and privilege, a rich man who married richer, a silver-spoon type of guy who lives in the most expensive neighborhood in Boston when not gallivanting from one townhouse to another. The John Kerry people know is a Forbes, and a Winthrop. The John Kerry people know isn't all that trustworthy because of his wealth, because despite notions to the contrary, we are still a society based upon class struggle. It is an article of faith among the 90% of Americans who aren't rich that those with money aren't to be trusted. That this same measure of distrust isn't extended to George W. Bush is a triumph of 'regular fella' marketing.
That is the Kerry people know, or think they know, thanks to this brainless campaign season. This is the Kerry created by commercials, by inane debate on the national cable news channels, by reporters who believe the shortest way to the truth is a straight line in the other direction.
There is another John Kerry to whom America deserves to be introduced.
The story of any person begins with their parents. John Kerry was born to Richard Kerry and Rosemary Forbes, who met in Paris just before the war. Richard Kerry, marked early in life by the suicide of his father and the death from polio of his sister Mildred, became a student of the law who eventually distinguished himself in the Foreign Service during the Eisenhower years. Rosemary, despite her Forbes and Winthrop heritage, was not spared her own deep trials. When the Nazis invaded Paris, Rosemary had to flee the city on a bicycle. She spent weeks foraging for food, hiding in barns and cellars, avoiding German soldiers and falling bombs, until she finally reached Lisbon and boarded a ship bound for Boston.
How do the ordeals of parents affect the fate of the child? Because of his father's government service, John Kerry saw the world, and came to know the art of diplomacy. He learned very young that there is much beyond the borders of America to value. His time abroad with his father shattered the quiet xenophobic tendencies many Americans get with mother's milk.
Because of his mother's narrow escape from the Nazi armies, John Kerry learned that there is indeed evil in the world which no amount of money or privilege can deflect. Living in post-war Berlin during one of his father's diplomatic postings, Kerry saw the bombed-out buildings, the refugees who were everywhere, and the tens of thousands of people who left everything behind to flee the Soviet sector. Kerry learned that such evil must be confronted. In the experiences of his parents, John Kerry developed the nuanced, intricate and informed view of the wider world that has since defined his life.
Of course, he came from privilege. Educated at the exclusive Fessenden School, and then at the super-exclusive St. Paul's School, and then at Yale University, Kerry was surrounded by the scions of wealthy families and was afforded an education available to only the richest few. In order to fit in with his fellow students, Kerry should have adopted the attitude of world-weary condescension, of laid-back expectancy, which marked children of the wealthy Eastern Establishment in that time and place.
He didn't. Inspired by teachers like Reverend John Walker, who taught those privileged children at St. Paul's about the realities of race in America, and later by President John Kennedy, whose call to service motivated millions, and always by his father Richard, who taught by word and example that service to country is the highest calling, John Kerry became a man of action and of ambition. Here was no callow youth marking time until his family's money became his money. Kerry became active in politics, and augured his life towards government work.
John Kerry served in the Navy from 1966 to 1970, volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam, and earned the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, three Purple Hearts, two Presidential Unit Citations and a National Defense Medal. Upon his return from the war, he became centrally involved with Vietnam Veterans Against the War, helped to create Vietnam Veterans of America, and brought the realities of Vietnam into living rooms all across America. He served as a prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, beginning in 1976. From 1977 to 1982 he served as First Assistant District Attorney, during which time he successfully battled organized crime, prosecuted and jailed the number two crime boss in New England, fought for victims' rights, and organized rape counseling programs.
From 1983 to 1985, John Kerry served as Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor, and transformed what had been a symbolic position to one with muscle. He organized Governors all across the country to combat a new and disturbing reality - acid rain caused by industrial pollution that was destroying lakes, rivers and the country's water supply. This activity began what has since become a lifetime of activism to protect our environment, a lifetime of activism that has made John Kerry perhaps the most effective fighter for environmental protection in American government.
In 1985, John Kerry was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has served for the last 19 years. Coming into the Massachusetts delegation under the long shadow of Edward Kennedy, who had already cornered the hail-fellow-well-met market of Massachusetts retail politics, Kerry worked to the strengths he had inherited from his parents and became a master of national and foreign policy issues. It would take a great deal of ink to detail the committees he served on, the legislation he shepherded into passage, the arguments he championed and the policies he pushed.
The best illustration of the man Senator John Kerry became, the man we now see standing for President, came when he decided to wage war against one of the most far-reaching and dangerous criminal enterprises ever seen in the world. In 1988, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or BCCI, was a highly respected international financial institution which catered to the most powerful of the powerful. BCCI had allies all through Washington D.C. and across the world.
The public reality of BCCI changed completely when John Kerry, fresh from his lead role investigating the Iran/Contra scandal, was tasked to run down Iran/Contra drug connections as chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. Very soon, Kerry discovered damning BCCI connections not only to Noriega and the laundering of drug money, but to a massive international network of dirty cash moving to and from the most dangerous people in the world.
Immediately, Kerry met with opposition from power-players in Washington. Everyone - literally everyone, from both parties, including President George H.W. Bush, whose son George W. had enjoyed BCCI financing for one of his doomed oil businesses - pressured Kerry to back off. Instead, Kerry took the information he had gathered and gave it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. Morgenthau agreed to begin a criminal investigation into BCCI. By 1991, the investigation had blown up what Morgenthau described at the time as "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."
Journalists David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin, writing for Washington Monthly, published an article titled 'Follow the Money', which chronicled Kerry's work against BCCI. In their article, Sirota and Baskin state, "As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda. And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a 'global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad.'"
"By July 1991," continued Sirota and Baskin in their article, "Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today 'is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI.' As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, 'BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations.'"
Here is a man who came from a level of privilege most Americans have never known. He could have become what so many children from the upper echelons of money and power become - callow, shallow, lazy, biding his time until he got everything he thought his position granted him, leaning on powerful family friends to make up for the shortcomings that arise from an idle life and the sense that the world owes him whatever he desires, believing that making money and enjoying position are the alpha and omega of life.
John Kerry went in the opposite direction. He was raised to believe that privilege has its duties, that public service is the alpha and omega of life, and has worked every day to fulfill the obligations his parents and his education and his own deeply-held beliefs instilled in him. In his fight against BCCI, he revealed himself to be a man of great purpose, of mission, who refused to bow before the altars of status quo and go-along-to-get-along that are all too worshipped in Washington.
A life of service and study crafted a man of depth, of intelligence, who can see all the sides of any issue and incorporates all available data before making a decision. The opponents he has faced and defeated throughout his career have enjoyed painting him as vacillating, as indecisive, as a man who holds several positions at once in order to cover his political backside. In truth, these incomplete views on John Kerry are born from a modern political landscape that cannot fathom a man who is judicious, contemplative and thorough, because such attributes have been all too absent from our political discourse.
Judicious, contemplative and thorough. In a dangerous world, made vastly more dangerous by politicians who think in violent black and white because simplicity polls better and fits into soundbites, a man like John Kerry may seem out of place. He is, in fact, in exactly the right place at exactly the right time.
Author's Note | This article is dedicated to my father, who was born in a small Southern river town, who heard Kennedy's call, who volunteered for Vietnam, who returned to spend his entire professional life as a public servant in a variety of government positions. He was not born into the same privilege as John Kerry, but the fact that their lives have followed incredibly similar tracks speak volumes on the character of each man.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'
Jump to TO Features for Thursday September 30, 2004
2004-10-07 13:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well you'll have to forgive me Walter, but I have a hard time gettin' my mind around it being God's guidance for Christians, or non-Christians for that matter, to advocate, argue for and in fact, work to see our nation fight in an unjust, immoral war in Iran where I'm sure thousands and thousands of innocents will die. Granted I'm no cynic and maybe my will to power is a little flabby, but can you walk me through that rationale?[/QUOTE]
I think that the problem is that you and most others haven't fully accepted the fact that WE ARE AT WAR, and that therefore a different set of ethics applies.
Our government has lost all legitimacy by legislating in defiance of the natural law: allowing (even funding) the murder of babies through abortion; the waging of illegal foreign wars; legal protections (and in practice active advocacy of) sodomy; the destruction of the institution of marriage through no-fault divorce and the conflation of homosexual unions with the marriage bed; willful failure to execute its most basic duties, including protection of invasion by foreigners; the institution of legal disabilities against whites. The list could go on and on.
I mean, what will it take to convince us that all bets are off, and that loyalty to the Holy Faith of our fathers and to the memory of our glorious Washington compels us to avail ourselves of all lawful means to bring the Empire down?
I stress here that I reject violence, since non-violent means, including the right to post here freely on OD and to vote for the worst candidate Bush, are still available to us.
The point is this: once we accept that we are at war, then the ethics of war apply. And in war lying to the enemy and posing as a friend even while directing him to an ambush is not only allowed, it is mandated.
You are a man of peace, and the ethics of war don't come naturally to you. Or to me, for I too want nothing more than to be left the hell alone by the feds to raise my family in peace. Like you, I much prefer living in Kieth's Code of Amity.
But we are at war, and that means we change out of our street clothes and put on war paint.
We must urgently develop what Sir Arthur Keith called the "code of enmity" in regard to the Empire. We can do whatever we can - within certain very broad limits - to hurt the Empire. Indeed, we are required to do so.
Applying the code of enmity, the analysis goes like this. Since we are at war with the Empire, and provided that we are convince that war with Iran would be very harmful to the Empire and is quite likely to advance our cause significantly, then the code of enmity provides that we are not only allowed to use our vote and to lie to others to encourage the Empire to walk into that hornet's nest, but indeed we are morally bound to do so.
When I was a kid my Irish grandmother made me memorize the following, which was a sort of creed for Irish resisters of British Imperial rule:
[QUOTE]With a reasonable man I will reason, To a humane man I may plead, But to a tyrant I shall give no quarter, Neither need my word to him be good.[/QUOTE]
That's a pithy statement of Natural Law ethics, in my opinion. I freely give and expect in return a just and indeed merciful hearing from all men of good will. But if you force me to go to war, then expect no quarter, and I will lie to you when it benefits me.
The Empire is tyranny. The Empire is inspired, I do not doubt, directly from Satan. We are at war. That means that we shall give the Empire no quarter, and that we can lie to the Empire when it damned well suits us.
A vote for Shrub is such a lie. We're using political power (lawfully, I might add) to hurt, rather than help, the Empire.
I'm voting for Shrub because he's a reckless and foolhardy Emperor. The last thing we need now is a prudent man in the Presidency.
Worse is better. Such is the logic of the Code of Enmity.
Walter
2004-10-07 13:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I think I need more guidance from the Holy Spirit to get a clear idea of what would be the more godly option here. Petr[/QUOTE]
That's wonderful.
But read [URL=http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/index.htm#KEITH]Keith[/URL].
We are bound by the Natural Law.
Christ Himself also said: [QUOTE]Luke 22 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
2004-10-07 13:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]That's my position, solutrian. If anything, I'll write in "none of the above." I want desperately to delegitimize our campaign in Iraq and I believe that Kerry getting elected would do that. Or at the very least end Republican support for it since it would have a Democrat calling the shots. But I simply cannot vote for a pro-sodomite and baby-killer like Kerry.
I'm sure I'll just stay home and tend to my family.[/QUOTE]
It's way far too late for all of that.
Look at the incomplete litany of outrages I posted above.
This government not only has lost all legitimacy under the Natural Law such that we need not actively support it, it has in fact declared war on us such that we are morally bound to resist it.
Using nonviolent means, I hasten to add.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
[QUOTE]2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men":
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. [/QUOTE]
2004-10-07 17:52 | User Profile
Walt, You have almost convinced me.
PS -- Clear out your PM inbox, please.
2004-10-07 21:26 | User Profile
It all sounds so convincing.
But I wonder how closely the worse-is-better types would adhere to the doctrine, should they or their own loved ones be made to suffer from it personally.
Would Walter and say, Roy Batty, still be cheering for a war with Iran in secret, should someone close to them be issued a draft notice?
I hardly think so.
2004-10-07 23:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red]- "I wasn't aware Ygg was making such a recommendation. "[/COLOR]
Yggdrasil opposes voting for candidates like Nader, who may be more honest and ideologically attractive, but who still don't have any real chance to win. [/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree. The one way to ASSURE that you maintain the current two party system with the selection limited to virtual clones is to employ this tactic.
If Americans voted their conviction instead of their fear, you would see a shift in politics to reflect the real issues. Politicians have one belief... They believe they'd like to have your vote. If more democrats voted for Nader, you'd see democratic policy shift toward Nader. If more republicans voted for the Constitution party or for Ron Paul (I know he's not running...) you'd see the republicans shift as well. The problem now is that we have a two party system; they agree on the agenda and we're left to support the lesser of two evils.
2004-10-08 05:10 | User Profile
I am learning to appreciate my position on OD. Read and not respond.
2004-10-08 05:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=EDUMAKATEDMOFO]It all sounds so convincing.
But I wonder how closely the worse-is-better types would adhere to the doctrine, should they or their own loved ones be made to suffer from it personally.
Would Walter and say, Roy Batty, still be cheering for a war with Iran in secret, should someone close to them be issued a draft notice?
I hardly think so.[/QUOTE]
You seem to imply that we can somehow avoid a painful future. My point is that the shite cannot now be averted. It's too late for that. Much, much too late. There's no way we're getting out of this without major horrors. It's going to happen anyway. The point is that the sooner it happens, the better it is for us.
Imagine our society is like a man with cancer, but he's in denial about that growing lump on his neck. All I'm saying is that we must understand that we're not going to cure this thing without extremely painful treatments in all events, and the sooner the treatment starts - that is, the sooner it starts to hurt really bad - the better our chances of a cure.
And our society suffers from an advanced malignancy.
I'm not saying it will be easy. As in our own lives, we must be warrirors for our own health. We must be willing to take the cure early.
We must be hard if we hope to win.
Walter