← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kevin_O'Keeffe
Thread ID: 15626 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2004-11-12
2004-11-12 08:27 | User Profile
[url]http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4153[/url]
Human Trash Turn Out for Bush
by H. Millard
Bush was a big hit on election day out in the human trash places of America that are full of beer swilling, unemployed, fat, ugly white chicks living with black boyfriends in cheap apartments, shotgun rental homes and trailer parks like the low lifes you see on TV cop shows.
Those are some, but by no means all, of the people from the red states who voted for Bush. They're the teased hair, bottle blond, tattooed-boob people who pass as conservatives in this nation these days. They're also the target market for the neocon radio talkers. They liked Bush's tough guy anti-terror talk. Mostly they're too dumb to understand cause and effect and can't see that it was Bush and his father, as confirmed by the latest tape from Osama bin Laden, who provoked the attacks on the U.S.
One doesn't even have to be as bright as a refrigerator light bulb to understand that both Bush administrations have had a screwy and unfair guns for the Israelis and sneakers for the Arabs foreign policy. That pisses a lot of people off who are on the receiving end of bombs and rockets made in the U.S.A. It is predictable that some will want to strike back at the U.S. And, while they'd probably like to have their own jets and big bombs and other "non-terrorist" means of war, they don't, so they put bombs in shoes and hijack airliners and fight back in whatever way they can against those they consider to be evil.
Don't get me wrong, here, I'm not saying that it was right for the U.S. to be attacked, but I am saying that if we want to have a safe and secure nation, we'd better understand the real causes of the hatred for us and not be fooled by the simplistic statements of George Bush. This may not be understood in the homes of the human trash, but those who attacked us didn't "hate our freedom," and they're not terrorists just to be terrorists. Those kinds of silly statements may play well with low I.Q. types, but for those who think even a little about these things, they are seen for the absurdities that they truly are.
With the sound of Rush Limbaugh on the radio in the background in the rusting double wides, you can hear Festus say, "That George W. Bush sure is a manly man, why he gonna kick that Osama's butt good." Meanwhile, the coffins full of dead young Americans are snuck back into small town America in the middle of the night -- at about the same time as Bush's daughters are probably bar hopping.
The human trash also liked that talk about family values even though they have no idea of what a real family is or should be. These are the folks who think "genes" is a misspelling of "jeans" -- the pants you put on to go to the welfare office with your half white, half black children. These are the people who think you're supposed to punctuate answers to questions with a nervous little laugh and whose highest goal in life is to appear on a reality TV show so they can jump up and down and make exhibitionist asses of themselves. These are the ones who are empty inside and who are living meaningless lives and whose greatest value to the planet may be when they die and turn into fertilizer.
The human trash folks usually aren't very bright and they're easily manipulated. Some of them probably think genius means being able, with enough time and a pencil and paper, to figure out bowling scores. Once, some of these folks -- the white ones -- might have been out lynching blacks; not because they had an understanding that whites are in danger of extinction and blacks are killing whites left and right all across this nation, but because that's just what they did then. Now, they've been reeducated and their ignorance based attitudes toward blacks have turned into ignorance based attitudes about whites who have some real consciousness of the genetic holocaust whites face. Once, they would have sneered and yelled "nigger," at blacks, but now they sneer and yell "racist" at whites who want to stop white extinction. Among these numbnuts are the former segregationists who changed their minds when it became popular to like blacks. These are the morons who have no real understanding of the nature of man and whose attitudes and views are shaped by blind prejudice born of propaganda, rather than correct beliefs born of reason. They're an easily suggestible and simple lot. Just feed them the right propaganda in easy to understand terms and rely heavily on pictures, and they'll often buy it. Everything they know about politics or genes or just about anything else, they learned via childish propaganda. It's the same way that some of them first learned to love cigarettes -- by being exposed to propagandistic advertising which they internalized, and it's the same way they're now being weaned away from cigarettes with similar but opposite advertising. Their simple subconscious minds are so open and receptive to carefully crafted psychology lab tested images that they aren't able to use critical thinking skills to find the truth about politics or anything else.
These are the people who bought the phony "one-of-us" hick images of George Bush; who in reality is a millionaire born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and who went to one of the most prestigious prep schools in all of Massachusetts and who then went to Yale and Harvard.
Kerry, on the other hand, didn't get their votes. He presented them with the wrong images and pictures. Kerry got stupid and did photo ops of himself windsurfing and doing other yuppie things. Kerry should have known that there's not much friggin' ocean out there in trailer park country. Most of the red states don't have yuppie bays where middle-aged élites can pretend they're teens. "Yoo-hooo, it's me, John Kerry. Look at me, I'm windsurfing." There was Kerry daintily swooshing around on a friggin' surfboard looking as thin and light on his feet as a ballet dancer from the New York Ballet instead of standing out in the boonies kicking manure like Bush. What the hell kind of advisers did Kerry have, anyway? The yuppies would have voted for Kerry no matter what, so why the hell was he doing yuppie photo ops? Hell, Kerry should have been seen changing oil on his pickup truck. And, if he didn't have a pickup truck he should have bought one -- an old and dirty one. Instead of owning property near yuppie ski resorts, he should have taken some of that ketchup money and bought a hick farm someplace so he could have been seen cutting wood and walking around with a blade of grass in his mouth. Geez, Kerry's image people were so bad that they probably would have sent John Edwards along for the farm photo ops and then we'd have seen the Bushies bashing them as Andy Griffith and Opie clones.
Anyway, (don't get whiplash here), one wonders if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were really evil, or were they just an earlier version of the trash in the red states who, in their arrogance and stupidity, thought that there were so many of them that they were all powerful? Can it be, in this case, that evil means stupidity and good means smart? And, if so, might some people who believe in the Bible be wondering what the Big Guy in the sky is thinking right now? Are they scanning the horizon to see if a couple of Angels are out wandering around the red states looking for a few good people, and warning them to get out?
2004-11-12 19:13 | User Profile
Spoken like a true elitist Northeast liberal twit. To better illustrate your view of who voted for whom, go to:
[url]http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm[/url]
2004-11-12 20:06 | User Profile
I read that 76% of those that voted for Kerry have an IQ of 105 or more.
Also the West coast and the North East coast were the ones to vote for Kerry.
2004-11-12 20:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I read that 76% of those that voted for Kerry have an IQ of 105 or more. Considering that Kerry got the majority of the black and Hispanic vote, I find this extremely difficult to believe.
[quote=Ponce]Also the West coast and the North East coast were the ones to vote for Kerry.[/QUOTE] And what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that these places are 'smarter' than the South and Midwest? Or are you suggesting that there are fewer of the 'human trash' in the West Coast and the Northeast? I would think you were wrong on either count.
2004-11-12 21:21 | User Profile
What I write is as information that I find interesting, if it is true or not is for you to be the judge the same as I judge what the other members of this board write,,,,,,,however, now you got me thinking and maybe is true and the IQ of the Spanish people and Blacks are higher than that of whites,,,,,like, the illegals are taking over the USA and the white man is doing nothing about it but talk?
Before I post anything I always try to get the same info from at least 3 sources and most of the initial info and leads I get it from Rense.Com.
2004-11-12 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Considering that Kerry got the majority of the black and Hispanic vote, I find this extremely difficult to believe..[/QUOTE]
Gawd, no shit. What a worthless post by Ponce. Sooooo easy to rebut.
2004-11-13 04:16 | User Profile
Millard is an old ugly hag that should have been put out to pasture long ago.
It was mostly white men and married white women that voted for Bush.
So Millard can shut her stupid old mouth.
I wonder if the dear old Millard saw this...
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/pa...0/epolls.0.html[/url]
2004-11-13 04:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Gawd, no shit. What a worthless post by Ponce. Sooooo easy to rebut.[/QUOTE]
Look for the leads below as from where I obtained the info that I posted, you can read it on your own.
Right of wrong I have no Idea, I only find it interesting.
If you say that it is "worthless" then you might be right all I did was to post what I read.
About the West and North East votes, go to "Rense.com
About the IQ votes, go to KEYWORD and type "IQ and Politics" and you can see the figures on your own.
2004-11-13 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce] About the IQ votes, go to KEYWORD and type "IQ and Politics" and you can see the figures on your own.[/QUOTE] There was something 'proving' that the Blue States had higher average IQs than the Red States that came out a couple of months ago. It turned out to be bogus, but a lot of folks believed it, including the well-respected British magazine 'The Economist'. Steve Sailer showed that it was a hoax on the Vdare.com website. I suspect that is what you saw.
2004-11-13 18:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]Spoken like a true elitist Northeast liberal twit.[/QUOTE]
Its legitimate to opine that the article was "like" one from an "elitist Northeast liberal twit," but the author is a White Nationalist.
2004-11-13 18:43 | User Profile
They're also the target market for the neocon radio talkers.
I don't think anybody here would disagree with this. Look how jew-cons on talk radio whipped up Bubba's resentment against the Dixie Chicks.
Red America isn't the only segment of America that is susceptible to being manipulated by agitprop, but they are very malleable by pseudo-populist radio hosts.
2004-11-13 19:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Considering that Kerry got the majority of the black and Hispanic vote, I find this extremely difficult to believe.
As do I (regarding the claim that 76% of Kerry voters had a 105+ IQ - not with all those 70-80 IQ level Blacks voting for them at a rate of over 80% - its just about arithmetically impossible, unless perhaps we assume no intelligent Whites voted for Bush, yet oddly, millions almost certainly did make that dreadful and seemingly idiotic mistake).
[QUOTE=Quantrill]And what exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that these places are 'smarter' than the South and Midwest? Or are you suggesting that there are fewer of the 'human trash' in the West Coast and the Northeast? I would think you were wrong on either count.[/QUOTE]
The sort of human trash (I'm talking about the low-grade Whites here, not the Blacks, Jews, etc. - one can't compare apples and oranges, at least not very meaningfully) that inhabits Manhattan or the Bay Area, tends to be of a different variety than the sort that inhabits Indiana, or my beloved, native state of Alabama. The former sort played a major role in the undermining of the West from That Awful Delano Person's inauguration in 1933, until Sept. 11, 20001 (when we entered a new historical epoch, just as America did in '33, as well as in 1861 and 1776). While they are a morally reprehensible bunch with an infamous and treasonous history, they don't really matter all that much anymore, much like no one cared about Whigs and the so-called "Doughface" Democrats of antebellum America during the McKinley administration (not a perfect analogy, as the liberal/Marxist/hippie/faggot/yuppie/feminist/Atheist/media-trend-follower nexus still exists, while the Whigs and the "Doughfaces" were largely forgotten circa 1900, yet one presumably takes my point). Are these people, the ones who handed America over to the Hon. Rev. Dr. Col. Sir Martin Luther King II, Esq., the Sumner Redstones of the world, and their collaborators, enemies of the Constitution and the will of the Founding Fathers, liberty, moral decency, and all that is good (even if not ***EVERY SINGLE[/B][/I] hippie or Atheist necessarily is)? Of course, but they are no longer [B][I]EFFECTIVE[/B][/I] enemies of Western civilization, but rather a perplexed coterie of nearly irrelevant academics and professional "intellectuals" with very little mass following (other than several million sheeple who adopted their attitudes, for the most part decades ago, and who like most people, don't much tend to question the attitudes they've come to associate with themselves).
These days, the neo-"conservatives" have replaced the Marxists, the selfish libertine degenerates, etc., as our primary enemies. Christian Dispensationalist heretics piss me off (and worry me, and make me sad) one HELL of a lot more than do hippies, dykes or orthodox left supporters of Ralph Nader and/or Dennis Kucinich for President (that last group even has some admirable qualities, at least within the present historical context, i.e. however misguided they may be on most social and economic questions, they manfully oppose our Zionist enemies). Its all well and good to hate the liberals, and rather difficult to avoid doing so, but in today's world, its something of a waste of time and energy. The sort of human trash that dominates America's heartland, and which is scorned on our west coast and the northern half of our east coast, is a much larger problem for America than the elitist villains of yesteryear. The fact that the Jews have clearly shifted their emphasis (albeit still a good deal more at the elite level than at the level of the Jewish masses, although that seems to be gradually changing) to favor the neo-cons, Christian Zionists and the like, over their previous allies in the demo-socialist, anti-White left, does tend to lend weight to my emerging thesis here, I don't think it would be presumptuous of me to suggest.
2004-11-13 19:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Millard is an old ugly hag that should have been put out to pasture long ago.[/QUOTE]
Pot, kettle, you know the rest....
Take your lies back to Stormfront (although at least here, they do no harm, as no one is stupid enough to take them seriously).
2004-11-13 20:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Pot, kettle, you know the rest....
Take your lies back to Stormfront (although at least here, they do no harm, as no one is stupid enough to take them seriously).[/QUOTE]
A pink rose for you, Kevin.
2004-11-13 20:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I read that 76% of those that voted for Kerry have an IQ of 105 or more.
Also the West coast and the North East coast were the ones to vote for Kerry.[/QUOTE]
Do you find that impressive?
Mentzer
2004-11-13 20:54 | User Profile
Kevin O'Keeffe
What is your intelligence quotient - any idea?
Merely as a matter of interest. You are under no obligation.
Mentzer
2004-11-13 21:09 | User Profile
This is not one of Millard's better articles. He has written a number of good ones.
2004-11-13 22:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Do you find that impressive?
Mentzer[/QUOTE]
Mentzer? I only find it interesting that a certain class or group of people stick together even when voting, however, I found out that what I posted was wrong and it was used for something else about two years ago.
2004-11-14 15:18 | User Profile
"When considering matters of race, Bush will know that 88 percent of those who voted for him are white, compared with 66 percent for Kerry."
"And at the ballot box, seven in 10 Bush supporters were married, compared with only slightly more than half for Kerry."
"His victory in Ohio mirrored those in other industrial states: Rural counties supported him overwhelmingly, and Kerry drew his support from the big urban industrial centers. Each of the state’s 88 counties turned out more votes for Bush than in the 2000 election, with 44 counties giving the president majorities of 60 percent or higher."
[url]http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004...1107News027.asp[/url]
2004-11-14 15:21 | User Profile
Defining the values victory
"The truth is that values, which exit polls found motivated many of Mr. Bush's supporters, have much less to do with religion than Democrats believe. Ironically, the real problem is liberals have imposed their beliefs on America in exactly the way they imagine conservatives want to do. Often, the real frustration isn't even with the liberal goal but how it was achieved. Consider the most divisive issue of all: abortion. Had the courts left it alone, the states would gradually have changed their laws, with some being very permissive and others maintaining tight restrictions. This would have eventually led to one of two outcomes. Either it would stabilize, as people moved to states that suited their moral or religious beliefs, or it would have pressured Congress to adopt something that probably would look much like the trimester system we have today. But the democratic process was not allowed to operate. It was too time-consuming, too messy and too uncertain for those who wanted legalized abortion immediately. So the Supreme Court imposed it by fiat, thus leaving those against abortion or even just uncomfortable with it feeling disenfranchised, as if their views count for nothing. Moreover, the lack of a legislative solution also means there is no way to tinker with the system to fix obvious flaws, such as the problem of partial-birth abortion, without reopening the whole question for debate."
Good article, read on... [url]http://washingtontimes.com/commenta...00745-8688r.htm[/url]
2004-11-14 15:22 | User Profile
Another good point from the same article.
"A similar situation has arisen over same-sex "marriage." Liberals are too quick to assume all opposition to it is based solely on hatred of homosexuals, when it is based more on a fear courts will impose it by judicial fiat without the consent of the people. Consequently, there are grwoing numbers of voters who are secular in their beliefs but find themselves within the values coalition. They oppose making abortion illegal, but also oppose Roe vs. Wade. They have no problem with same-sex "marriage," but are appalled that a single court in our most liberal state is effectively imposing a national policy allowing it. Such people are not prudes, but they don't want their children viewing nudity or listening to profanity on the public airwaves. If Democrats conclude there is nothing to the values issue except religion, they will be very mistaken. Unfortunately, they may conclude they will have to rely even more on the courts to impose their agenda in the future, thus making the fight over Supreme Court appointments even more bitter.
2004-11-15 15:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]What is your intelligence quotient - any idea?
Merely as a matter of interest. You are under no obligation.[/QUOTE]
Shortly after I was arested in 1999 for "threatening" some Jews (I did no such thing, but I did make some intemperate remarks I should have known would be so misconstrued, and thus foolishly placed myself in harm's way, despite my being innocent of the actual crime - "terrorist threats" - I was eventually convicted of - no plea bargains for me, thanks - and every lawyer I have spoken to agrees I was wrongfully convicted, I'll note here), a psychiatrist was called in to administer a series of tests, one of them being an IQ test. I scored 140. That's a fairly high score (the American average is 98, although for American Whites its probably more like 105, and a "genius" is anyone with a score of 150+), hence I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was claiming such a score based on having taken some litle test I found at the back of "Omni" magazine (anyone remember that one?), or some other questionably derived result.
Since I answered your question, may I ask why you wished to know? Just curious....
2004-11-15 16:12 | User Profile
Hey Kevin? I understand that 100 is the average for the IQ test and that 132 is for geniius,,,,,,,, maybe I am mistaken but that's what I was told by Mensa when I took their test back in 1972, have the IQ test changed?
By the way, in the US Army my test were of 110 and 117 and by Mensa 123, my wife's was 128 and she used to make fun of me because of that heheheh I loved it.
2004-11-15 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Hey Kevin? I understand that 100 is the average for the IQ test and that 132 is for geniius[/QUOTE]
I thought it was 150, but I may be wrong. With a score of 140, I'd happily accept finding out that 132 is the benchmark for genius....
2004-11-16 04:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Shortly after I was arested in 1999 for "threatening" some Jews (I did no such thing, but I did make some intemperate remarks I should have known would be so misconstrued, and thus foolishly placed myself in harm's way, despite my being innocent of the actual crime - "terrorist threats" - I was eventually convicted of - no plea bargains for me, thanks - and every lawyer I have spoken to agrees I was wrongfully convicted, I'll note here), a psychiatrist was called in to administer a series of tests, one of them being an IQ test. I scored 140. That's a fairly high score (the American average is 98, although for American Whites its probably more like 105, and a "genius" is anyone with a score of 150+), hence I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was claiming such a score based on having taken some litle test I found at the back of "Omni" magazine (anyone remember that one?), or some other questionably derived result.
Since I answered your question, may I ask why you wished to know? Just curious....[/QUOTE]
This is interesting.
An IQ of 140 is far above normal intellectual ability. It equates to that of Germany's best Generals in the European conflict of 1939-45. I mention averages only - from 135 to 145 - in Germany for high military office.
With regard America, you are allocated top-level echelon.
It is of course an incorrect measurement in scientific terms and not a true model or reflection of one's abilities.
For example: is our intellectual ability determined at birth? Or does it vary as we mature with learning and experience? Increase or diminish? Or with the nature of the learning subject, environment and parental infulence. And of great importance: cultural background and the courage, determination and strength to continue one's culture and beliefs against powerful external and internal forces.
In other words: to be stronger and smarter than the ever-present enemies that wish to undermine and replace our people with violence or pleading.
Mentzer
2004-11-16 05:04 | User Profile
Every drop of blood and then cancer from uranium is only another example of the tyranny you livve under. They control you. they control your liffe. they tell you when to die,. you are a piece of SHIT and George Bush knows youy are a PIECE of shit. George Bush is a hating son of a bitch and his mother iss Lucifer incarnattte,. **** you. Ive seen the satanic rituals., I don't need this.. i know they worshoip the Devil .. I have participatied in the sacrificces.. these people are not what you think thewy aree. they SERIUSLYY GIVE BL<OOD to SSATAAMNN it is true !!!!!!!! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!!!!!!