← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 15525 | Posts: 56 | Started: 2004-11-02
2004-11-02 14:24 | User Profile
John Kerry for POTUS. I needed to redeem myself for voting for the distastrous George W Bush in 2000. First time I've ever voted Democrat in my life, but obviously, what's happened over the last 4 years with W & Co. has extremely radicalized the entire world and especially the US populace.
I thought I'd never agree on things with avowed liberals like Michael Moore or Robert Redford but W & Co. has turned out to be so vicious that it's brought out the benevolence in me and I'm sure of many a former GOP'er. My vote was more [I]against[/I] George Bush than for John Kerry.
I hope that this current murderous regime falls today......it's bad for the soul of the American people.
2004-11-02 15:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]John Kerry for POTUS. I needed to redeem myself for voting for the distastrous George W Bush in 2000. First time I've ever voted Democrat in my life, but obviously, what's happened over the last 4 years with W & Co. has extremely radicalized the entire world and especially the US populace.
I thought I'd never agree on things with avowed liberals like Michael Moore or Robert Redford but W & Co. has turned out to be so vicious that it's brought out the benevolence in me and I'm sure of many a former GOP'er.
I hope that this current murderous regime falls today......it's bad for the soul of the American people.[/QUOTE]
I take it that you don't subscribe to the "worse is better" theory?
2004-11-02 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]John Kerry for POTUS. I needed to redeem myself for voting for the distastrous George W Bush in 2000. First time I've ever voted Democrat in my life, but obviously, what's happened over the last 4 years with W & Co. has extremely radicalized the entire world and especially the US populace.
I thought I'd never agree on things with avowed liberals like Michael Moore or Robert Redford but W & Co. has turned out to be so vicious that it's brought out the benevolence in me and I'm sure of many a former GOP'er.
I hope that this current murderous regime falls today......it's bad for the soul of the American people.[/QUOTE]
You are a disgrace to the white race!
2004-11-02 15:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I take it that you don't subscribe to the "worse is better" theory?[/QUOTE]
Walter! I know we've discussed at length here on OD about the 'worse is better' strategy, and I do believe that a collapse is what must come to pass before White/Christian Nationalists have a clear opportunity to reinstitute their God given, Constitutionally given self-determination and free association, among other things. However, that being said, let the US collapse from it's own bloated corruption and decadence WITHOUT destroying the entire world in the process.
Bush & Company would like to take the world down with itself, causing destruction on a massive scale and institute Israel as the seat of world government. Bush and his propaganda army, FOX News, has ridiculed and belittled my European brethren and probably would do his best to damage them in his possible next term. I hate that. I don't think Kerry would do the same....and I stress, I don't think he would.
The next REVOLUTION must come from within the USA without damaging the entire planet. John Kerry as POTUS might just get us there.
2004-11-02 15:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]You are a disgrace to the white race![/QUOTE]
Shut up you pathetic whore. You are a miserable sycophant who believes George W Bush is on your side. You're a robotic psycopath who thinks Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are the Holy Trinity.
You are a vacuous shill who doesn't even have a single free thought running through your sheep-sized cranium. You flood this board with agit-prop for a murderous, vacuous, deceitful, Chimpanzee who claims to be sent from God Himself. The thing is Gabrielle, we know who you work for, but the thing that your brainwashed mind doesn't get is........WE JUST DON'T GIVE A SH*T THAT MUCH.
Please, offer original debate instead of empty axiomatic slogans about how a mainstream political party headed by a puppet like George W Bush is going to 'save America from those EVIL liberals'.
You just sound stupid.
2004-11-02 15:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Walter! I know we've discussed at length here on OD about the 'worse is better' strategy, and I do believe that a collapse is what must come to pass before White/Christian Nationalists have a clear opportunity to reinstitute their God given, Constitutionally given self-determination and free association, among other things. However, that being said, let the US collapse from it's own bloated corruption and decadence WITHOUT destroying the entire world in the process.
Bush & Company would like to take the world down with itself, causing destruction on a massive scale and institute Israel as the seat of world government. Bush and his propaganda army, FOX News, has ridiculed and belittled my European brethren and probably would do his best to damage them in his possible next term. I hate that. I don't think Kerry would do the same....and I stress, I don't think he would.
The next REVOLUTION must come from within the USA without damaging the entire planet. John Kerry as POTUS might just get us there.[/QUOTE]
I think you're asking too much damage control. It just isn't possible for the world empire to collapse without bringing a lot of other folks down with it.
We must accept collateral damage. Minimize it, to be sure, but we'll always have it.
No omlettes without some broken eggs, no revolutions without some broken heads.
In the immortal words of Maddy Albright (Korbel), it's a price I'm willing to pay!
2004-11-02 15:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Shut up you pathetic whore. You are a miserable sycophant who believes George W Bush is on your side. You're a robotic psycopath who thinks Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are the Holy Trinity.
You are a vacuous shill who doesn't even have a single free thought running through your sheep-sized cranium. You flood this board with agit-prop for a murderous, vacuous, deceitful, Chimpanzee who claims to be sent from God Himself. The thing is Gabrielle, we know who you work for, but the thing that your brainwashed mind doesn't get is........WE JUST DON'T GIVE A SH*T THAT MUCH.
Please, offer original debate instead of empty axiomatic slogans about how a mainstream political party headed by a puppet like George W Bush is going to 'save America from those EVIL liberals'.
You just sound stupid.[/QUOTE]
Just one word for you,scum ... traitor!
2004-11-02 16:07 | User Profile
Xmetalhead and Gabrielle, you two mirror the nation at the polls. Half going for Kerry, Half going for Bush. And, you both are frustrated with the direction of the nation.
Other than the two of you being the same as the whole nation, there's no reason for the two of you to be at each other's throats. Neither of your votes change a thing.
2004-11-02 16:19 | User Profile
HH and Walter, I think 'worse is better' is in effect with either Bush or Kerry, but unlike Gabrielle, I have no faith in my choice for candidate to change anything for the positive, even possibly making it worse. The thing is, I simply hated with a passion what Bush & Company have done over the past 3 years and it's been building up. I guess I'm Anybody But Bush but I know it just doesn't matter.
But, hey, we all need a laugh sometimes in these sad times and seeing W & Neocons thrown out on their asses would really give me a much needed laugh out loud, however temporary that euphoria will be. :clap:
2004-11-02 16:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I hope that this current murderous regime falls today......it's bad for the soul of the American people.[/QUOTE]
So true. But, Kerry won't be any better.... aside from the "Christian" community not worshiping that monster.
2004-11-02 17:35 | User Profile
"Worse is better" could only possibly play out to our benefit, if and only if, it gets to the point where people are literally killing each other for scraps. With machetes.
Anything short of that kind of bedlam, and people won't be turning to folks like us for the solution. They'll go with who's always buttered the bread in any crisis.... The government. More and more government.
Even then, if such a collapse were to happen anytime soon, we and others of like mind would be the last to inherit any kind of power.
I admit worse-is-better may seem to be attractive in an abstract sense--- where the chaos happens far away.. where others do the fighting, the dying, the starving. Break it down to a pragmatic, personal level and it strikes me as being nearly as nutty as the dispensationalist--rapturist fantasy.
You won't catch me doing anything to hasten such a disaster, or to knowingly enable the powers that seem bent on making it happen.
2004-11-02 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=EDUMAKATEDMOFO]"Worse is better" could only possibly play out to our benefit, if and only if, it gets to the point where people are literally killing each other for scraps. With machetes.
Anything short of that kind of bedlam, and people won't be turning to folks like us for the solution. They'll go with who's always buttered the bread in any crisis.... The government. More and more government.
Even then, if such a collapse were to happen anytime soon, we and others of like mind would be the last to inherit any kind of power.
I admit worse-is-better may seem to be attractive in an abstract sense--- where the chaos happens far away.. where others do the fighting, the dying, the starving. Break it down to a pragmatic, personal level and it strikes me as being nearly as nutty as the dispensationalist--rapturist fantasy.
You won't catch me doing anything to hasten such a disaster, or to knowingly enable the powers that seem bent on making it happen.[/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree.
We've seen many examples of imperial collapse in the past century, with several of the really important ones in the last 15 years. The USSR collapsed economically and fractured along ethnic lines. That process is still underway in places like Nagorno Karabakh in Armenia, Chechnya in Russia, Abkhazia in Georgia. Same with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
The pattern seems to be that we get a collapse of the virtual aspects of the economy first, especially the fiat currency. The army doesn't get paid. Pensioners go hungry. People get pissed off, start feeling put upon by parasitical outsiders. But note well that in none of those places did we have a collapse back down to the machete level. Those societies shed many imperial accretions, but they all kept much of their advanced infrastructures and began building with varying degrees of success on those foundations.
And this all makes perfect sense to those who've read Joseph Tainter's outstanding analysis in "Collapse of Complex Societies." Collapse is an intelligble phenomenon. It follows a certain pattern. And one of the main rules is that empires collapse back down to the next lower, economically viable efficiency quantum.
That's the way it will be with us. The Empire will place so much stress on imperial institutions that the virtual economy will collapse. The dollar will nosedive, the military and secret police won't be paid on time, pensioners will go without SSI payments, and so forth. Every racial group will make more and more explicit demands on the productive white middle class, which will force those sheeple to finally pull their gaze from Monday Night Football.
Then one day everybody just looks at each other and decide to simply drop the pretence that they actually want to live in the same state together with blacks, browns, and so forth. What happens next depends on us and how well we accept the inevitable.
Czechoslovakia split into Czeska and Slovakia with nary a shot fired. Yugoslavia erupted into genocidal civil war. The USSR was in between - thankfully mostly peaceful, but there was unfortunately plenty of shooting. I'd rather follow the Czechoslovakian model than the Yugoslavian one, but I'll take what I can get.
Anyway, if you haven't done so I can't recommend Tainter's book more highly. Collapse doesn't mean a future stone age. It does mean a return, after a very painful period, of a resurgent real (versus virtual) economy based on self-contained nation states.
And that's a vision we can all get behind.
So let's do what we can to hasten that end. In accordance with Tainter's analysis, this means that we need to assist the Empire in laying stress vector upon stress vector, even as we work diligently to create the real social structures - families, churches, small businesses - that the imperial system can collapse back on to.
Walter
2004-11-02 19:12 | User Profile
By any stretch of the imagination, Bush Jr. is deserving of defeat and he is not on side our side or responsible conservatism. The best thing that his defeat can accomplish is to eject the neocons from power so that a new Republicanism can be restored as unlikely as that is.
2004-11-02 19:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]HH and Walter, I think 'worse is better' is in effect with either Bush or Kerry, but unlike Gabrielle, I have no faith in my choice for candidate to change anything for the positive, even possibly making it worse. The thing is, I simply hated with a passion what Bush & Company have done over the past 3 years and it's been building up. I guess I'm Anybody But Bush but I know it just doesn't matter.
But, hey, we all need a laugh sometimes in these sad times and seeing W & Neocons thrown out on their asses would really give me a much needed laugh out loud, however temporary that euphoria will be. :clap:[/QUOTE]
Silence - you commie...
True Americans... [img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2004/10/28/national/29campaign.1841.jpg[/img] President Bush appeared before crowds in Westlake, Ohio.
" Alicia Balseiro, 70, an ardent Bush supporter in Miami, said on Thursday that she had come out to vote early for a key reason. "I don't know if I'll die tomorrow," she said.
On Thursday afternoon, Jose Morales, 62, and his wife, Susana, waited two hours to vote for Mr. Bush in suburban Miami-Dade County.
A sense of urgency brought him out to vote early in his heavily Republican precinct, he said. "Kerry's too close," Mr. Morales said, referring to the tightness of the race. "They need my vote for the Republican Party."
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/campaign/29early.html?th[/url]
2004-11-02 20:41 | User Profile
Gabrielle -- your slavish and unreasoning devotion to Bush is misplaced. He is definitely not a conservative, and he is probably not even a Christian. Nobody else on this entire board thinks a second Bush term would be anything but disastrous. The only disagreement is over whether that disaster would be desirable.
Anyway, I just voted for Peroutka. This was a decision I went around and around with, but here are my basic reasons: 1. Regarding worse is better -- the election of either Bush or Kerry (whose politics are 95% identical) will hasten the collapse, so I do not feel compelled to vote for the worse of two evils to bring it about. 2. Although he has no chance of winning, I voted for Peroutka because he is a Christian man who stands for the Christian West, for the unborn, and for an end to aggressive war, fiat currency, and mass immigration. Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils in the name of pragmatism, I voted for the one candidate who actually represents a positive good. 3. He will not win, but a significant vote count will bring the Constitution Party's platform to the attention of the millions of Americans who are trapped in the two-party paradigm. It may also make some Representatives and Senators take notice. 4. Regarding the concerns about his ethnically Jewish (and thus possibly Marrano) VP candidate -- I tend to think the VP's conversion to Christianity is sincere. Even if it is not, this was not a huge concern for me, since there is less than zero chance that the guy will actually become the VP.
Anyway, that was the reasoning behind my protest vote. Of course, come tomorrow (or next month if it goes to the courts), we will end up with either Bush or Kerry. God help us.
2004-11-02 20:54 | User Profile
Q, nice post. I seriously contemplated voting for M. Peroutka, even into the voting booth this morning, since, like you, I found his appeal to almost fit exactly to my conscience. Anyway, the thought of defeating the Imposter Conservative Bush, with his demented sycophants' spirits being crushed as well, was too overwhelming for me to disregard and I voted for Kerry.
In any case your right about the election's outcome and 'worse is better' will be in effect with a Kerry victory and an ablosute certainty with a George II victory.
God Help Us.
2004-11-02 21:00 | User Profile
I voted for Peroutka. I consider Bush the slow road to hell and Kerry the fast road to hell. I know that the Constitution Party will not win but the party represents my views and is the best platform for white people.
Gabrielle, go to Bushrevealed.com to find out the unchristian things that he has promoted during his administration.
2004-11-02 22:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] Anyway, I just voted for Peroutka. [/QUOTE]
I didn't have that option - he wasn't on the ballot in Wisconsin.
W
2004-11-02 22:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Gabrielle -- your slavish and unreasoning devotion to Bush is misplaced. He is definitely not a conservative, and he is probably not even a Christian. Nobody else on this entire board thinks a second Bush term would be anything but disastrous. The only disagreement is over whether that disaster would be desirable.
God help us.[/QUOTE]
Wrong... my devotion is to my people and my country. Bush is the only answer for this time around.
2004-11-03 01:35 | User Profile
I voted for Peroutka. CA's votes will go to Kerry anyways. Gabrielle, why do you support Bush if so many white nationalist oppose him especially someone like David Duke?
2004-11-03 01:59 | User Profile
It looks to me like Bush will be the winner, I am sorry to say, but to me they are both bad.
You people better hide your kids, the draft will be here soon.
If you people are not ready or don't start now for what is to come then you are an idiot and deserve what ever you get.
If nothing else then think of your relatives, specially your wife and kids.
2004-11-03 02:01 | User Profile
I voted for Michael Peroutka for President. Locally is not pertaining to this board. The fact that millions of Americans votee for Bush means that Democracy is officially a failed and horrid form of government. If Bush wins, I welcome the missiles.. you voted for it morons. Horrid. Bush is a lying sack of shtt.
2004-11-03 02:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I didn't have that option - he wasn't on the ballot in Wisconsin.
W[/QUOTE]Not on the ballet in Oklahoma either. (Oklahoma is perhaps the hardest state in the nation to get ballet access to.) And our ballet had no space for write-in. I didn't quite realize that until I looked at it, ashamed to say.
Looking at a ballet with only two choices - Bush and Kerry. You know, I bet there were quite a few elections in Communist Eastern Europe where they had more choice than that.
2004-11-03 02:05 | User Profile
idiots [url]www.infowars.com[/url] [url]www.rense.com[/url]
How can so many people vote for such a liar, is because he has a nice smile and gives Nazi security lies to the mommies. The mommies should not even have the right to vote. I hate democracy. Democracy will be the failure of America. This is so sick. I swear if GWB wins, it is the END of America.
2004-11-03 02:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]... Democracy is officially a failed and horrid form of government.[/QUOTE] ED, I have also come to this conclusion. Give me a republic or a Christian monarchy over the mob rule of the teeming masses.
2004-11-03 02:17 | User Profile
Gabby;
Please read this thread:[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15498[/url]
I have only came across one good reason to vote for shrub;
Vote for Bush
Opinion; Posted on: 2004-10-31 07:49:11
The more Bush's critics dig into the causes and consequences of 9-11 and the Iraq war, the more evidence of Jewish corruption will come to light. If Bush is re-elected, this trend will only gain momentum.
by Michael J. Polignano
I RESPECTFULLY disagree with the course of action suggested by many esteemed White nationalist leaders regarding the upcoming elections. I am voting for George W. Bush, and I urge all Whites to do the same. I am not being facetious.
I am not voting for Bush because of his policies, which are anti-White in the extreme. He is squandering White blood and treasure in Iraq to serve not our nation's interests, but the interests of Jews around the world, while he is allowing non-Whites to flood White living spaces, take White jobs, consume White resources, pollute the White gene pool, and further dilute White political control over our destiny as a people.
I am not voting for Bush because of his character. Clearly one of Bush's attractions to the GOP powerbrokers is his lack of good character. He is vain and insecure, so he is easily flattered. He is small-minded and narcissistic, so he is satisfied with the empty trappings of power, leaving the real power in the hands of others. He lacks intelligence and curiosity, so he is easily fooled. He is intellectually lazy and indecisive, so he depends upon his advisors. He is shameless, so he can lie with the appearance of sincerity and betray any person or principle that gets in his way. In short, Bush is the perfect ventriloquist dummy for the corporate oligarchs and court Jews that surround him.
I am not voting for Bush because I think he is the lesser of two evils. He is the greater evil.
I am voting for Bush because I think that Jewish corruption of our culture and political system is the greatest problem White Americans face. Until Jewish power is exposed and broken, none of our other problems can be fixed.
Under the Bush administration, Jewish corruption has never been greater. But since 9-11 and the Iraq war, Jewish power has never been more exposed and vulnerable.
More Americans than ever before have been awakened to the Jewish problem. A few days after 9-11 both NBC and Reuters polled Americans on why it happened. Both polls reported that two thirds of Americans believed that our close alliance with Israel was to blame. These polls were quickly pulled, and although I have no doubt that Americans continue to be asked this question by pollsters, no results have been released to the public.
More Americans than ever before are speaking out about the Jewish problem, including prominent figures like Ralph Nader, Senator Hollings, and General Zinni. I constantly encounter White Americans of every social class and shade of the political spectrum who will privately discuss the Jewish problem with very little prompting once they feel safe to speak their minds. They do not speak out in public because they feel they are alone. They would speak out if they realized that they were not alone and that others would come to their defense if they were attacked.
Every time a public figure breaks the silence, the Jews are in a no-win situation. If they go on the attack, they expose themselves as bullies, cry-babies, and sophists. They also risk having the overused term "anti-Semite" lose its negative connotationsââ¬âor even become a mark of honorââ¬âas more and more mainstream, reasoned, and respected critics are labeled "anti-Semites" for candidly expressing their views. Yet if they remain silent, others are emboldened. Either way, the silent millions watch and learn.
Bush's critics have many motives, from high principle to pure partisanship to personal animosity. But whatever their motives, the more Bush's critics dig into the causes and consequences of 9-11 and the Iraq war, the more evidence of Jewish corruption will come to light.
If Bush is re-elected, this trend will only gain momentum. Perhaps the Jewish media will no longer be able to contain it. Then there will be an unprecedented free and frank national discussion of the Jewish problem. Such a discussion would be the beginning of the end of Jewish power in America.
The loathing of Bush by the Left is almost pathological. The Left had similar antipathy toward Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. When they won re-election, the Left went crazy and fought fanatically to bring down both Presidents: Nixon with Watergate, Reagan with Iran-Contra. If Bush is re-elected, he will get the same treatment. If the hatred is intense enough, non-Jewish Leftists may throw Semitically Correct strictures aside as they close for the kill. And there is little chance that the Bush administration and the Jewish power structure could withstand such scrutiny.
If Kerry is elected, however, the same anti-White policies and Jewish corruption will continue. But the critical momentum toward discussing the Jewish problem will be lost. The neo-conservative Jews will scuttle toward the wainscoting, to be replaced by a new cast of left-wing Jews who will pursue the same policies under different and more subtle disguises. Left-wing criticism of Jewish power will be all but extinguished, and there is little chance that mainstream conservatives will take up the torch. (Even if they did, the momentum would still have been lost.)
In a sane and healthy society, we would study the candidates and vote for the best man. But America is not a sane and healthy society, and things will have to get a lot worse before they can get better. Bush will make things get worse faster and hasten the day when the healing can begin.
That is why it is imperative that we re-elect George W. Bush.
The writings of Michael J. Polignano, a graduate of Emory University, may be found at [url]http://michaeljpolignano.com/[/url] and are published at NationalVanguard.org with the permission of the author.
Related articles:
"What if Everyone Voted Third Party?" by James Buchanan
"How George Bush Made Me into a Liberal Love Slave" (Why I'm voting for Peroutka) by Edgar J. Steele [url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/slave.htm[/url]
"Johns Hopkins, Columbia Estimate 100,000 Deaths in Iraq" [url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4098[/url]
Source: Author ââ¬Â¢ Printed from National Vanguard ( [url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4111[/url] ) National Alliance ââ¬Â¢ Box 90 ââ¬Â¢ Hillsboro ââ¬Â¢ WV 24946 ââ¬Â¢ USA NationalVanguard.org
2004-11-03 02:29 | User Profile
Thank you for sharing that, Blond Knight. As far as James Buchanan goes, he is bought and paid for in my opinion.
Please allow me to share this with you...
The Bush-haters Daniel J. Flynn (archive)
October 25, 2004
ââ¬ÅI think what Bush is doing currently is becoming a fascist dictator,ââ¬Â protestor Melissa Orr explained at one of the myriad left-wing demonstrations during President Bushââ¬â¢s four years in office. ââ¬ÅDonââ¬â¢t trust the man. He is not the good and true leader that everyone thinks he is. He has his own personal agenda for the elites, and so did Hitler.ââ¬Â
Other demonstrators read from the same sheet of music: ââ¬ÅI think Bush is the new Hitler,ââ¬Â ââ¬ÅI see Bush exactly as a Hitler,ââ¬Â and ââ¬Å[Bush] is almost like a Hitler.ââ¬Â
If thereââ¬â¢s one thing that short-circuits the mental wiring of leftists, it is the name George W. Bush. Denouncing the President in the most extreme manner possible, the Bush-haters, as their name suggests, emote rather than think. Interviewing several hundred of them during the Bush Presidency, I have been continually struck by how their fervor overrides commonsense.
Bush hating is equally a reaction against the presidentââ¬â¢s personality as it is a reaction to his policies. Bushââ¬â¢s Christianity, his inherited wealth, his blueblood pedigree, and his brief career as an oilman combine to make him a villain straight out of central casting. For a leftist, whatââ¬â¢s not to hate? Add to this the president seeing black-and-white where the Left gets lost in shades of gray, Bushââ¬â¢s occasional cockiness, and his rejection of phony intellectualism and you have a formula for a leftist boogeyman.
Itââ¬â¢s this boogeyman, rather than the actual man sitting in the Oval Office, that so invigorates the presidentââ¬â¢s enemies on the political fringe.
ââ¬ÅKnew in advance? [Bush] funded them. He created al Qaeda. He has been a longtime business associate of bin Laden,ââ¬Â claimed one bullhorn-toting marcher from Rhode Island. ââ¬ÅWho was responsible for 9/11?ââ¬Â asked a veteran protestor on the streets of Manhattan. ââ¬ÅAmerican imperialism and George Bush in particular. The Bush family and the bin Laden family have long, long economic ties. Theyââ¬â¢re co-investors in the Carlyle Group.ââ¬Â One masked activist professed earlier this year, ââ¬ÅAfghanistan was because of the pipeline to the Caspian Sea, the oil. Actually, the Carlyle Groupââ¬âGeorge Bush, Sr.ââ¬âwas meeting with the Taliban several times before 9/11 happened.ââ¬Â
So what happens if this stupid, oil-hungry, latter-day Hitler gets reelected? ââ¬ÅIââ¬â¢m moving to England,ââ¬Â Pennsylvanian Jennifer Huseman explained outside the gates of the White House. ââ¬ÅIf Bush gets reelected Iââ¬â¢m not coming back into the country until he is gone.ââ¬Â An Ohio World War II veteran admitted at the same demonstration, ââ¬ÅIââ¬â¢ve already told my wife that I plan on moving to Canada.ââ¬Â
Less intellectual than moron, the Bush-haters nevertheless conform to the main idea put forth in my book Intellectual Morons: ideology tends to blind people to reality. Comparing Bush to Hitler, imagining that the President had advance knowledge of 9/11, and contending that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought to enlarge the bank accounts of leading administration figures, the Bush-haters rail against a caricature of Bush rather than reality.
Many of these activists, parroting the conspiracy theories of the likes of Michael Moore and Gore Vidal, treat politics as a religion. They may not believe in a God, but they do have a devil: George W. Bush. Convinced of the righteousness of their crusade, anti-Bush fanatics will say just about anythingââ¬âno matter how preposterousââ¬âin attempts to discredit the object of their hate. The Bush-haters take their more bizarre beliefs on faith, so logic, facts, and reason fail to dissuade them from championing inaccuracies.
George W. Bush didnââ¬â¢t get to pick his enemies. Had he gotten the opportunity to do so, he couldnââ¬â¢t have done a better job of selecting opponents, who, by juxtaposition, make him appear in such a favorable light. Calling the president a Nazi or claiming he is in cahoots with bin Laden doesnââ¬â¢t win over any sensible person. It repulses.
Ironically, the same zealotry that will inspire millions to cast votes against the incumbent next week has already driven greater numbers, disturbed by the immoderation of the Bush-haters, into the arms of the president. Like policy, passion has unintended consequences.
The Bush-haters aim to make the president look bad. They succeed in doing that to themselves. With enemies like these, who needs friends?
Daniel J. Flynn is author of Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (Crown Forum, 2004)
[url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...n20041025.shtml[/url]
2004-11-03 02:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]It looks to me like Bush will be the winner, I am sorry to say, but to me they are both bad.
You people better hide your kids, the draft will be here soon.
If you people are not ready or don't start now for what is to come then you are an idiot and deserve what ever you get.
If nothing else then think of your relatives, specially your wife and kids.[/QUOTE]
" Does it now not arouse suspicion that, while President Bush, in the debates, categorically rejected the possibility of a military draft, Kerry, using circumlocution to avoid a direct answer, managed to suggest that he would increase Americaââ¬â¢s military by 40,000 personnel? In an all-volunteer force, how does one spontaneously conjure up an additional 40,000 troops? Given Kerryââ¬â¢s fundamental ideological support for the individualââ¬â¢s liberties as contingent upon service to the ââ¬Ågreater good,ââ¬Â he will not hesitate to meet this promise by means of conscription. "
[url]http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../1104saclib.htm[/url]
2004-11-03 03:02 | User Profile
I voted for Michael Badnarak. He was the only alternative on the ballot here in Illinois. If Peroutka had been listed I would have chose him. Still, Badnarak is firmly against the war and neo-con imperialism.
2004-11-03 03:53 | User Profile
Comparing Bush to Hitler? That's ridiculous! Hitler had sensible economic policies.
2004-11-03 05:16 | User Profile
I didn't vote at all. If I had, then it probably would have been for Badnarik, although there was a part of me that really wanted to vote for Nader because of his "puppets on Israeli strings" remark.
Bush and Kerry are both absolutely abhorrent to me and everything I stand for. I can think of slight consolations corresponding to the election of either one -- e.g., Bush is less anti-gun, Kerry is perhaps better on the environment -- but what really matters is that both are hideous enemies of freedom and goodness. Perhaps more to the point, both Bush and Kerry are willing slaves of the Jews.
2004-11-03 05:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Not on the ballet in Oklahoma either. (Oklahoma is perhaps the hardest state in the nation to get ballet access to.) And our ballet had no space for write-in. I didn't quite realize that until I looked at it, ashamed to say.
Looking at a ballet with only two choices - Bush and Kerry. You know, I bet there were quite a few elections in Communist Eastern Europe where they had more choice than that.[/QUOTE]
Nader was on the WI ballot, as were a couple of local lefty (Madison! Ugh!!) parties, Socialist Workers or some such nonsense.
I could have written in Peroutka, I guess, but it seemed a waste, when I could vote for Shrub and collapse.
As I write this it looks increasinginly like a Shrub victory. If so (still an "if") then we'll see if he does what I'm hoping he'll do: invade Iran and reinstitute the draft.
Cheers.
Walter
2004-11-03 05:45 | User Profile
Although it's not a scenario I would feel comfortable actively working to bring about, I must say that I hope you're right about a collapse under Bush, Walter. The current diseased system will not change until Americans are issued a LOUD wake-up call. If Bush is reelected -- and as I write this, it appears that Bush pretty much has things wrapped up -- then Yankee-Judea (as some have called it) will probably continue to pursue its imperialist agenda at its own expense until it can no longer pay the tab.
Americans deserve to suffer for their blindness, stupidity, and hypocrisy, and I have a feeling that Bush will lead them to their chosen fate.
2004-11-03 06:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]idiots [url]www.infowars.com[/url] [url]www.rense.com[/url]
How can so many people vote for such a liar, is because he has a nice smile and gives Nazi security lies to the mommies. The mommies should not even have the right to vote. I hate democracy. Democracy will be the failure of America. This is so sick. I swear if GWB wins, it is the END of America.[/QUOTE]
Exelsis? it is the end of American,,,,,, let's go to Cuba heheheeheheh.
2004-11-03 06:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Although it's not a scenario I would feel comfortable actively working to bring about, I must say that I hope you're right about a collapse under Bush, Walter. The current diseased system will not change until Americans are issued a LOUD wake-up call. If Bush is reelected -- and as I write this, it appears that Bush pretty much has things wrapped up -- then Yankee-Judea (as some have called it) will probably continue to pursue its imperialist agenda at its own expense until it can no longer pay the tab.
Americans deserve to suffer for their blindness, stupidity, and hypocrisy, and I have a feeling that Bush will lead them to their chosen fate.[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean.
I think that we naturally shrink for the notion that we are at war with the Empire. But there really is no doubt that the Empire is working actively for the destruction of a white, Christian and English-speaking America. And my first earthly loyalty is to this American nation. In short, we are at war, and we'd better accept that.
But my reason sees this clearly, just as my heart screams out its love for the Old Republic. But the Old Republic is dead, the Empire killed it. If we want to make a New Republic, then we must kill the Empire (or better perhaps to assist the Empire in its own suicide).
I believe that in times of crisis like this, we must be guided by cold reason and not let our natural sentiments cloud our judgement.
I hate the Empire, and am personally at war with it. That means the Code of Enmity rules.
Whatever we can do to assist the Empire to put its foot in the Iranian bear trap, the better off we will be. Using nonviolent means, I hasten to add.
And while I think that Kerry and Shrub would have largely similar policies both foreign and domestic, I do believe that of the two Shrub is the more recklessly profligate. Imperial profligacy plays into our hands, just as at this juncture imperial prudence is the worst thing that could happen to us.
It's all good, Angler. Bin Laden reportedly called Shrub's idiotic incursion into Iraq the "hoped for but never expected gift." And so it is for us. This war has been a great boon to us. It has done more than anything I can recall to destroy the sheeple's trust in the Inner Party. A war with Iran and the reinstitution of the draft would spell the end of the Empire and the Inner Party, in my estimation.
t least, that's our best hope, so I think it wise to pin our hopes to that. Walter
2004-11-03 09:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]....The current diseased system will not change until Americans are issued a LOUD wake-up call. Well they do have many loud wake up calls. The problem is we as paleoconservatives have not given them what a reasonable person in America would consider a viable alternative, and real practical possibility for change. Until that happens, it doesn't matter how bad things get.
If Bush is reelected -- and as I write this, it appears that Bush pretty much has things wrapped up -- then Yankee-Judea (as some have called it) will probably continue to pursue its imperialist agenda at its own expense until it can no longer pay the tab.
Americans deserve to suffer for their blindness, stupidity, and hypocrisy, and I have a feeling that Bush will lead them to their chosen fate.[/QUOTE] Like I say, you're still an American too. Don't count yourself as automatically superior. Just knowing more than your fellows does not qualify you for political leadership or superiority. You must also communicate it, apply it, and otherwise present yourself as a viable alternative. Paleo's too often assume themselves ammune to the failings of the general populace. We should offer more than * Apres moi le deluge* and other sour grapes.
2004-11-03 09:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Under the Bush administration, Jewish corruption has never been greater. But since 9-11 and the Iraq war, Jewish power has never been more exposed and vulnerable.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.
I'm pleased that I'm not the only one to see this point.
This war has forced the Yahoodis to tip their hands.
Gibson's "Passion" also helped.
A war with Iran and a new military draft will pull the neo-Kahns into the full light of day.
Worse is better.
W
2004-11-03 09:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Like I say, you're still an American too. Don't count yourself as automatically superior. Just knowing more than your fellows does not qualify you for political leadership or superiority. You must also communicate it, apply it, and otherwise present yourself as a viable alternative. Paleo's too often assume themselves ammune to the failings of the general populace. We should offer more than Apres moi le deluge and other sour grapes.[/QUOTE]
Your point is well taken.
I don't know what else I can do, though. I'm no leader of men, that's for sure.
We paleos need a leader with all the qualities you mention, but frankly I don't see one on the horizon.
Until then I'll be sucking sour grapes I guess. Walter
2004-11-03 11:30 | User Profile
As a rule I don't believe in or advocate strategic voting.
I could not bring myself to vote for Kerry because he supports killing babies.
I could not bring myself to vote for Bush because he wants to grant amnesty to every illegal alien in this country and open our "border" with Mexico. Down here in Texas, supporting Bush and his immigration/amnesty policy is basically committing racial/cultural suicide.
I wrote in Peroutka/Baldwin for President/VP, for what it's worth. In the end you don't gain anything except knowing you voted your principles. That's enough for me right now.
2004-11-03 11:35 | User Profile
Nader was listed at my polling place as a certified write-in candidate (meaning votes cast for him will be counted), and so I voted for him. Had he not been so listed, I could have chosen from among Bush, Kerry, Peroutka, Bodnarik, David Cobb of the Green Party, or Leonard Peltier of the Peace & Freedom Party. I would have gone with Peroutka. Had there been a chance Bush could have won in California, I would have voted for Kerry.
It appears that there is still some slight chance, which will be determined in no small part by how the courts rule on precisely which provisional ballots should be counted, that Ohio just **MIGHT[/B] still be pulled into the Kerry column several days hence. If so, then Kerry wins (the only other two states yet to be decided, Iowa and New Mexico, have no arithmetic significance at this stage). I'm not holding my breath, however.
Gabrielle, you are an idiotic whore. Please go spread your anti-conservative, anti-American, anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-human, anti-life, anti-goodness secretions somewhere else. Better yet, get rid of your computer altoether and quit spreading your degenerate filth across the Internet.
2004-11-03 12:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Not on the ballet in Oklahoma either. (Oklahoma is perhaps the hardest state in the nation to get ballet access to.) And our ballet had no space for write-in. I didn't quite realize that until I looked at it, ashamed to say.
Looking at a ballet with only two choices - Bush and Kerry. You know, I bet there were quite a few elections in Communist Eastern Europe where they had more choice than that.[/QUOTE]
I simply wrote "Peroutka" on my ballot, not that it matters anyhow. The presidential election is a more a carnival designed to grant the illusion of control. I had local issues in mind - like the Lottery and Gaming questions.
2004-11-03 14:10 | User Profile
Well, I feel kind of stupid upon reflecting on my vote for Kerry, but America will suffer nonetheless for giving into and giving themselves over to official party propaganda of the Bush Administration and it's ruthless quest for World Domination. Just because some claim that the Republicans are dominated by Whites makes no difference. Those Whites are not lovers of their own race but are Zionists at heart. With the Republicans dominating all branches of government now, the US is essentially a One Party system, folks.
An openly corrupt, lying, mass murderer, intellectually vacuous man gets re-elected by a majority of Americans is testimony to everything we've talked about here. Americans have put their approval to the shedding of blood of innocent people and therefore will not be held guiltless by an Almighty God, no matter how much they claim to love Jesus or how much money they give to their church. If Americans believe justice is being done in Iraq and the Middle East then the same fate awaits this country.
I am convinced more than ever that the United States is doomed. You can talk about your 'worse is better' and 'exposing the jews' but do not forget that worse is also worse. What you might overlook is that there might not be any country left after the Empire has run it's apocalyptic course.
It's truly a sobering and sad day. The flicker of hope that existed is gone.
2004-11-03 14:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I am convinced more than ever that the United States is doomed. You can talk about your 'worse is better' and 'exposing the jews' but do not forget that worse is also worse. What you might overlook is that there might not be any country left after the Empire has run it's apocalyptic course. [/QUOTE]
I know what you mean and I totally empathize. Even in the best possible scenario this will hurt, and bad.
But we'll survive. There are 200 million white people in this country. And let's be clear, we're talking about Americans. We're technically savvy and inventive beyond the rest of the world's understanding, even if we are a tad "culturally challenged" (but nothing that a good Latin Tridentine High Mass can't fix!) We're also well spread out across the countryside and are easily able to feed and provide basic services for ourselves. We don't need the freeking empire which, after all, was designed precisely to suck us dry for the benefit of a coalition of third worlders and Jews.
If we ever get racially aware then we'll be dictating the terms and nobody else.
And that's really all it takes. We need to awaken that sleeping giant. And the sooner the giant awakes, the better, as he'll have much less shite to clean up if he addresses it now instead of in 20 years.
But address it he will.
I'm hoping that four more years of Shrub's appalling mismanagement will be a darning needle to the giant's backside.
As I've often said, there's a significant element of wishful thinking in all of that, but it's well within the realm of the possible. And if there's one bumbling fool in the world who can make it happen, it's our own beloved Shrub.
Walter
2004-11-03 14:39 | User Profile
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
2004-11-03 15:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS![/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm hoping that will do it.
2004-11-04 03:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]/ I wrote in Peroutka/Baldwin for President/VP, for what it's worth. In the end you don't gain anything except knowing you voted your principles. That's enough for me right now.[/QUOTE]
Jay-Tex I voted for Perooutka here in Rhode Island. How is it that he was on the RI ballot but not the Texas ballot ?? I was given many choices for President on my ballot in Rhode Island. EVen the commie Worker's World Party. Green Party was number one on top of our ballot. We had them all. How do states like yours disallow them ? I was proud to vote for the Constitution Party. That you had to write-in is a failure and speaks volumes about your state.
2004-11-04 14:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]John Kerry for POTUS. I needed to redeem myself for voting for the distastrous George W Bush in 2000. First time I've ever voted Democrat in my life, but obviously, what's happened over the last 4 years with W & Co. has extremely radicalized the entire world and especially the US populace.
I thought I'd never agree on things with avowed liberals like Michael Moore or Robert Redford but W & Co. has turned out to be so vicious that it's brought out the benevolence in me and I'm sure of many a former GOP'er. My vote was more [I]against[/I] George Bush than for John Kerry.
I hope that this current murderous regime falls today......it's bad for the soul of the American people.[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Grey Ghost Let's just see who voted for John Kerry, shall we?
74% of Jewish voters
67% of Non-White Men
75% of Non-White Women
88% of African-Americans
53 % of Latinos
56% of Asians
54% of all Other races
63% of people with Under $15,000 annual income
50% of people with No High School education
50% of voters who had never served in the military
58% of Non-married people
58% of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people
100% of people who thought Moral Values were the least important election issue.
77% of people who thought Same-Sex Couples should be allowed to Legally Marry
Now, I'll admit that Bush's policy on alliance with Israel is dangerous, but can someone remind me again why John Kerry was a better choice than George Bush?
[url]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html[/url]
Water seeks its own level...
2004-11-04 15:16 | User Profile
Gabrielle, you will regret your beliefs in George Bush in the very near future. That's all I can say.
2004-11-04 15:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Gabrielle, you will regret your beliefs in George Bush in the very near future. That's all I can say.[/QUOTE]
Well, we'll all soon find out whether he's really crazy enough to declare war on Iran and maybe even Syria, either of which would necessitate the reinstitution of the draft.
If he does that, the neocons are toast.
IMHO, of course.
2004-11-04 15:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Well, we'll all soon find out whether he's really crazy enough to declare war on Iran and maybe even Syria, either of which would necessitate the reinstitution of the draft.
If he does that, the neocons are toast.
IMHO, of course.[/QUOTE]
Walter, I'm not saying that Americans had any viable choice this year for President. We were pretty much screwed either way. However, many paleos are reasoning that with Bush as president that it's a certain blow to the gays (no pun intended), or it's going to spell the end of abortion, or immigration, or abolish the United Nations or maybe even set up a theocracy in America. Maybe it could happen?
If it does come to pass, then we'll have a pure totalitarian state......and we should all hope to be a loyal, dedicated, proper Party supporter and be willing to proclaim fealty to Israel and be willing to submit to US military conscription under the penalty of imprisonment or death.
Please, paleos, many, many a person has said in times past, "it can't happen here"....
....So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
2004-11-04 16:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Gabrielle, you will regret your beliefs in George Bush in the very near future. That's all I can say.[/QUOTE]
Why would I ?
2004-11-04 16:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Why would I ?[/QUOTE]
Because Bush is gonna wreck the country further, that's why.
2004-11-04 17:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Because Bush is gonna wreck the country further, that's why.[/QUOTE]
Whatever you say...
2004-11-04 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]Jay-Tex I voted for Perooutka here in Rhode Island. How is it that he was on the RI ballot but not the Texas ballot ?[/QUOTE]
In Texas, to get on the ballet, apparently a party needs 75,000 signatures in 75 days of people registered to vote but who did not vote in the primaries. Like many election-related laws, this seems designed to keep away the competition away from the Democrats and Republicans.
I think when there are only three names on the ballot, that's a pretty good sign that getting on the ballot may be too difficult, especially if two of those three were grandfathered in.
Road Island had, what, 7 choices on the ballot? Floridia has 8 (thanks to the Cuban Communists). This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the three choices in Texas.
2004-11-06 09:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]In Texas, to get on the ballet, apparently a party needs 75,000 signatures in 75 days of people registered to vote but who did not vote in the primaries. Like many election-related laws, this seems designed to keep away the competition away from the Democrats and Republicans.[/QUOTE]
I don't know all the ins-and-outs of Texas ballot access laws, but I do know that the restriction that the signatories may not have voted in the previous primary election, only applies to candidates like Nader, who were trying to get on the ballot as an independent, rather than as the candidate of a third party (the reasoning seems to be that if you participated in a party primary, you don't have the right to support placing an independent on the ballot; apparently Texas does not have a decline-to-state option in partisan registration).
Ballot access laws in America are a corrupt, tyrannical disgrace (outside of Tennesse and a few other havens of decency in this particular regard). They are almost always more harsh on independents than they are on so-called third parties. For example, here in California, the number of signatures an independent must collect is approximately twice as many as the number a member of a non-recognized party must collect (such as when David Duke appeared on our 1988 ballot as the nominee of the Populist Party, despite the Populist Party never having been an officially recognized party in California). I'm not sure why this would even be, other than that the elites have a stronger dislike/fear of independents than they do of minor parties. They seem to be saying that its wrong to run on what is, for all practical purposes, the same ticket that George Washington ran on in 1789 (although I believe Washington subsequently ran as a Federalist, rather than an indepdent, in 1792). Not only did Ralph Nader get over 3% of the vote here in California in 2000, he also got over 3% of the vote in 1996 (when he scored only 0.6% nationally - although he did manage to deliver Colorado to the Dole column at Klinton's expense), and yet I was reduced to having to write his name in? Preposterous!
2004-11-07 17:46 | User Profile
[url]http://batr.org/wrack/110804.html[/url]