← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17371 | Posts: 100 | Started: 2005-03-15
2005-03-15 11:28 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red]This is part of a thread I split earlier. The title is mine, not Walter's, for lack of a better one.- Sertorius [/COLOR] [QUOTE=Angler]Schwartz forgot to say that Raimondo tortures animals and steals candy from babies. :rolleyes:
Is anyone surprised to see such venom spewed at Raimondo from the likes of some neocon Jew at FrontPageMag? Raimondo might be a butt pirate, but he has been doing such good work that at least some neocons have come to regard him as a threat worthy of the most vitriolic ad hominem.[/QUOTE] I object to referring to the stalwart Justin Raimondo with such pejorative epithets as "butt pirate."
I really must ask that you in future use nicer terms, such as "rump ranger" or even "fudge packer."
But serously folks, no surprises here. A real hatchet piece from our good Trotskyite friends at Frontpage.
2005-03-15 21:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I object to referring to the stalwart Justin Raimondo with such pejorative epithets as "butt pirate."
I really must ask that you in future use nicer terms, such as "rump ranger" or even "fudge packer."[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps a little of that oft-referenced Christian charity is in order here, i.e. since we're all supposed to be sinners, why should we pay any particular attention to Mr Raimondo's unfortunate immersal in the sin of sodomy, and instead why not just give him credit where its due a man who so clearly is doing much more good than harm, unlike so many of his fellow (heterosexual) countrymen these days....
2005-03-15 23:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Or perhaps a little of that oft-referenced Christian charity is in order here, i.e. since we're all supposed to be sinners, why should we pay any particular attention to Mr Raimondo's unfortunate immersal in the sin of sodomy, and instead why not just give him credit where its due a man who so clearly is doing much more good than harm, unlike so many of his fellow (heterosexual) countrymen these days....[/QUOTE]
Sorry ... the Amen Corner's fresh out of Christian charity for the Right sort of homosexuals. Blew it all bumping and grinding on the ever-clever Coulter's defense of Gannon/Guckert/[url=www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1359155/posts?page=33#33]Gosch?[/url].
This excoriation of Raimondo (whom I enjoyed very much at the Randolph Club though they'll never have me back because I whistle instead of applaud), seems nice timing for FReeper sorts. An anti-homo screed against a perennial villian like Raimondo is just the ticket to wash their hands after defending Gannon. And it can't hurt as part of gearing up to protest California's critical fall in the domino tumble toward nationwide gay marriage
.. or "civil unions" as Bush likes to call 'em when making big promises to reserve the the Magic Word for heteros only.
2005-03-16 05:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Or perhaps a little of that oft-referenced Christian charity is in order here, i.e. since we're all supposed to be sinners, why should we pay any particular attention to Mr Raimondo's unfortunate immersal in the sin of sodomy, and instead why not just give him credit where its due a man who so clearly is doing much more good than harm, unlike so many of his fellow (heterosexual) countrymen these days....[/QUOTE]
Yeah, right. :cry:
2005-03-16 05:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]This excoriation of Raimondo (whom I enjoyed very much at the Randolph Club though they'll never have me back because I whistle instead of applaud), seems nice timing for FReeper sorts. An anti-homo screed against a perennial villian like .[/QUOTE]
What do you mean that you "[I]enjoyed him [/I] very much at the Randolph Club?"
Alone or with others?
2005-03-16 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]why SHOULDN'T patriotic Americans opposed to the suicidally insane imperialist misadventure in Iraq come together irrespective of ideological differences?[/QUOTE]
I hope this thread answers your question, O'Keefe.
Among people of like ideology and shared objectives, you can't get five minutes' worth of consensus without back-biting. Imagine the body-count you'd get if you tried [I]widening [/I] the tent....!
As for the Japanese in WW2, well, WW2 was sort of a malignant innovation on so many counts. When what are essentially competitors (the Allies and Nazi Germany) clash, the results are gory enough. When races/civilizatons clash, a different sort of evil chauvinism emerges in that neither side views the other as fully human [I]to begin with[/I]. Jap tortures against Allied pows were unimaginably barbaric and subhuman......but surely no more barbaric than the reprisal, of atomic weapons used against civilian targets. And we are both still paying the price for that. Their great technological successes notwithstanding, the Japanese have been prevented from reassuming the full definition of nationhood, and that can only leave their society with deep, schizophrenic fissures that will bear a heavy and perhaps fatal toll on any future Japan will (or won't) have. Whereas we are now well-established as the world's beat cop on the take, shaking an accusing finger at anyone not on the guest list who dares arm themselves with the sort of destructive capability that thus far only [I]we [/I] have been depraved enough to use on an opponent. It may be better to be feared than loved, but nobody stays afraid forever. And grudges have a longer shelf-life than either fear or love.
Nor, of course, is Nazi Germany off the hook here, having popularized the reduction of one's own ethnic kin to less-than-human status. If WW1 was the disastrous marriage of the 19th-century social order to the mechanized carnage-potential of 20th-century technology, WW2 has mostly shown how a spoonful of deliberately demonizing propaganda helps make the atrocities go down. Holy crusades against infidels are nothing new, but the high-tech means to carry out thse crusades certainly was. Result: 50 million dead in a relative eyeblink, and the sort of fast-dissembling world we're stuck with at the present time.
What nation can look in the mirror and say they walked away from World War 2 with clean hands and composure?
2005-03-16 06:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I hope this thread answers your question, O'Keefe.
Among people of like ideology and shared objectives, you can't get five minutes' worth of consensus without back-biting.[/QUOTE] Don't you mean [I]pillow biting[/I]?
2005-03-16 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What do you mean that you "[I]enjoyed him [/I] very much at the Randolph Club?"
Alone or with others?[/QUOTE] Walter, if I'm not mistaken, Askel5 is a she. Does that answer your question? You're acting like a kid at a Catholic junior high school.
2005-03-16 07:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Walter, if I'm not mistaken, Askel5 is a she. Does that answer your question? You're acting like a kid at a Catholic junior high school.[/QUOTE] Lighten up!
2005-03-16 08:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Lighten up![/QUOTE]What if I'm Black? :afro:
2005-03-16 09:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What if I'm Black? :afro:[/QUOTE] Then take a chill, Bill!
But seriously, folks, Raimondo is both a Jew and an unrepentant sodomite, and so he can never be fully trusted.
Now, that said, I'm a proud and regular contributor to Antiwar.com, and I very much appreciate his apparent courage and honesty in his struggle with the Neo-Khans.
But that fact remains that he's not one of us, and never will be.
I say use him and guys like him tactically, but let's not get emotionally attached to the Raimondos of the world and fool ourselves into thinking they could ever be loyal to our European, Christian and English-speaking nation. This is tactical only, it's not strategic. We must be prepared to dump our Jewish/libertarian/secular-humanist/sodomite allies at any moment.
And we can be sure that the moment will come sooner or later.
2005-03-16 09:36 | User Profile
Well, he's a full-on 'mo, of course, but I think he's 1/8 hebe. Shoot, the next Pope is likely to have more Jew in him than that!
2005-03-16 09:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Well, he's a full-on 'mo, of course, but I think he's 1/8 hebe. Shoot, the next Pope is likely to have more Jew in him than that![/QUOTE]
I thought he was a quarter Hebe.
Anyway, even an eigth is enough to warrant keeping a careful eye on him.
He can never really be trusted.
2005-03-16 15:57 | User Profile
[B][I] - "I say use him and guys like him tactically, but let's not get emotionally attached to the Raimondos of the world and fool ourselves into thinking they could ever be loyal to our European, Christian and English-speaking nation. This is tactical only, it's not strategic. We must be prepared to dump our Jewish/libertarian/secular-humanist/sodomite allies at any moment."[/I][/B]
Yup.
Petr
2005-03-16 16:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"I say use him and guys like him tactically, but let's not get emotionally attached to the Raimondos of the world and fool ourselves into thinking they could ever be loyal to our European, Christian and English-speaking nation. This is tactical only, it's not strategic. We must be prepared to dump our Jewish/libertarian/secular-humanist/sodomite allies at any moment."[/QUOTE]
You haven't "won" a damn thing yet, but you're already openly planning a Night of the Long Knives for anyone who might [I]help [/I] you win.
You guys are like one-calorie Diet Lindstedts: same great-tasting Day of the Rope, with half the carbs!
2005-03-16 16:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]You haven't "won" a damn thing yet, but you're already openly planning a Night of the Long Knives for anyone who might [I]help [/I] you win.
You guys are like one-calorie Diet Lindstedts: same great-tasting Day of the Rope, with half the carbs![/QUOTE]
Eight-legger, we oughtta promote you from Spider to Octopus...
This is no time for any of us to wax grandiose--or to insult allies in the greater struggle.
2005-03-16 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yeah, right.[/QUOTE]
Raimondo has done a lot more for our side than anyone here at OD, perhaps more than all of us combined. And I'm sure all of us are guilty at one time or another of lying, cheating, fornicating, what-have-you, i.e. the commission of various sins. So why do you some of you guys feel the need to descend to the level of 13-year olds when the unfortunately sinful character of one of our more useful allies gets referenced? Why not simply ignore it, and hope for the best in his case? Isn't that what Christians ought to do, i.e. to pray for his soul, rather than ridicule it? What course do you suppose Jesus would recommend in a similar context? He is (Justin Raimondo, that is) aiding the forces of goodness, and is a thorn in the side of the forces of evil, so doesn't he deserve a modicum of personal respect? Where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is a Special Sin, more deserving of approbation than all the others? Surely the murders his enemies concretely commit in our collective name are far worse, but those sins don't seem to, er, fascinate you the way speculation on Mr. Raimondo's apparent sodomy does. Personally, I can think of Mr. Raimondo, and his work, without thoughts of a man's penis doing peculiar things with the anatomy of another man instantaneously forming in my head, and subsequently making school boy cracks about it. Why can't you? Seriously. Why does his faggotry have to be the first and last thing you always think about each and every time his name enters the discussion? Isn't that just a little bit, oh, I don't know, stupid?
2005-03-16 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Lighten up![/QUOTE]
Schwartz is apparently a faggot (according to a poster at Frontpage, he recently left his woman for a man in his 50s), so make your litle faggot jokes about him, and you'll probably get some chuckles. But faggot jokes about our friendly allies just aren't particularly amusing. Mr. Raimondo is a sad case, perhaps, but he's more of a threat to our enemes than you or I our.
2005-03-16 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Raimondo has done a lot more for our side than anyone here at OD, perhaps more than all of us combined....[/QUOTE] Good post, Kevin.
2005-03-16 19:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]You haven't "won" a damn thing yet, but you're already openly planning a Night of the Long Knives for anyone who might [I]help [/I] you win.[/QUOTE]
It does tend to lessen one's enthusiasm for working together....
2005-03-16 19:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]This is no time for any of us to wax grandiose--or to insult allies in the greater struggle.[/QUOTE]
Too true. Its not like the Jews and their allies are going to say "OKay, (real) Christians over there, fascists & Nazis over there, American-style White racist segregationist types stand in the middle, while libertarians who vocally opposed neo-"conservatism" stand over there, and we'll all punish you separately, based on our various degrees of dislike for you." No. If we lose, as is not unlikely at this dreary stage of events, we're (and I'm including our families in that "we" are all going to be whipped to death in some Talmudist dungeon, or intentionally inflicted with HIV in one of their prisons, or burned alive for the amusement of Mestizo youths, or whanot, so it behooves us to cooperate while we still can. To discuss how we're going to betray the other factions before we've even begun to hover in the vague, general vicinity of imminent victory is almost, dare I say it, Linderesque.
2005-03-16 19:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Raimondo has done a lot more for our side than anyone here at OD, perhaps more than all of us combined. And I'm sure all of us are guilty at one time or another of lying, cheating, fornicating, what-have-you, i.e. the commission of various sins. So why do you some of you guys feel the need to descend to the level of 13-year olds when the unfortunately sinful character of one of our more useful allies gets referenced? Why not simply ignore it, and hope for the best in his case? Isn't that what Christians ought to do, i.e. to pray for his soul, rather than ridicule it? What course do you suppose Jesus would recommend in a similar context? He is (Justin Raimondo, that is) aiding the forces of goodness, and is a thorn in the side of the forces of evil, so doesn't he deserve a modicum of personal respect? Where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is a Special Sin, more deserving of approbation than all the others? Surely the murders his enemies concretely commit in our collective name are far worse, but those sins don't seem to, er, fascinate you the way speculation on Mr. Raimondo's apparent sodomy does. Personally, I can think of Mr. Raimondo, and his work, without thoughts of a man's penis doing peculiar things with the anatomy of another man instantaneously forming in my head, and subsequently making school boy cracks about it. Why can't you? Seriously. Why does his faggotry have to be the first and last thing you always think about each and every time his name enters the discussion? Isn't that just a little bit, oh, I don't know, stupid?[/QUOTE]
Well said, Kevin. Justin Raimondo has done more to raise awareness of the neocon problem than you, I, il ragno, Walter, or whoever else. It's almost laughable to see people drum somebody out of a "movement" (what movement is that, by the way? Where are the candidates? Where's the political party? Shouldn't these be in place first before it's decided who is in and who is out, or would inconsequential doses of reality like that ruin the fun of playing make-believe Grand Inquistor?) when they themselves have contributed far less to the agenda at hand than those they attack.
And like you, I wonder just how saintly and monastic are the lives of those who would drum somebody out of the (once again imaginary) "movement" for homosexuality or any other vice. How many gamblers, alcoholics or drug addicts are on any messageboard? How many adulterers? How many have treated their personal enemies violently? How many are guilty of financial improprieties? Let's have a poll. Or better yet, let's not, because by these standards NOBODY qualifies for "the movement."
These considerations should be kept in mind before you take seriously the words of those who think that they have God on their side, and who dwell too much on the personal lives of others. Andrew Sullivan and Bill Bennett are repulsive to me because of their ideology, not their personal failings and weaknesses. I apply the same standard to political friend or foe.
2005-03-16 20:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]And like you, I wonder just how saintly and monastic are the lives of those who would drum somebody out of the (once again imaginary) "movement" for homosexuality or any other vice. .[/QUOTE]
Wait just a second.
I'm not in any "movement" other than the Jesus movement. This seems to be a common misunderstanding.
While it's a pleasure talking to you non-Christian fellows, let me be clear that I have no comrades other than Christians.
2005-03-16 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Kevin_O'Keeffe]Why not simply ignore it, and hope for the best in his case? [/QUOTE]
Well, first, lighten up dude. It ain't nothin' but a party.
[QUOTE]Isn't that what Christians ought to do, i.e. to pray for his soul, rather than ridicule it? [/QUOTE]
What do you have against a little ridicule?
[QUOTE]What course do you suppose Jesus would recommend in a similar context? [/QUOTE]
Jesus was known to say some very harsh things indeed. Ask the Pharisees.
And as you may recall, the Maccabees led a revolt against the Greeks for opening a lyceum that included buggery of their sons. To paraphrase John Paul II, the Maccabee rebellion is one of the taproots of Western civilization. Resistance - armed resistance if necessary - to the faggot agenda is the sine qua non of the Western Code.
[QUOTE]He is (Justin Raimondo, that is) aiding the forces of goodness, and is a thorn in the side of the forces of evil, so doesn't he deserve a modicum of personal respect? [/QUOTE]
Be careful here, Kevin. It's important that we Christians make it clear that we reject utterly his sodomite lifestyle. He clearly is on the dark side if he proudly proclaims his love of sodomy.
He is an enemy. I have no problem making common cause tactically with enemies, I just insist that we be clear that he is an enemy.
[QUOTE]Where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is a Special Sin, more deserving of approbation than all the others? [/QUOTE]
Leviticus 18:22.
Turns out when a faggot like Raimondo gets boned in the a$$ by another guy it really ticks God off. In a big way. He calls it an "abomination."
Calls for summary execution by stoning.
I mean, other offenses you get a few lashes or something. But having another man stick his schwienshtuker in your poop chute? Death penalty, baby.
So yeah, the Bible does indeed say it's a "special siin."
[QUOTE]Why does his faggotry have to be the first and last thing you always think about each and every time his name enters the discussion? [/QUOTE]
Well, it's like that old joke.
[I]You build a great bridge, do they call you a great engineer? You discover the cure for a terrible disease, do they call you a great scientist? But molest one child . . . [/I]
C'mon. The guy's an unrepentant pervert. It's sorta hard to ignore such a glaring (or should I say flaming?) character defect in a man (if indeed one can properly call him a man). And it's not like Raimondo let's you forget about it, either. He's very open about his faggotry, and even mentions it in his articles from time to time.
So what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. His being so open about his love for mixing semen with blood and feces is an in-your-face declaration of war against everything the Christian West stands for. His open fudge-packing constitutes the original offense against the good order of society here. My noticing it and making light of it is but a natural (and very mild) response to his offensive behaviour. In short, Raimondo is the one who drew first blood in this, not me or anybody else who rightly is nauseated by the mere thought of two guys with their peckers covered in each other's poop.
Now, if Mr. Raimondo were to repent and try to live his life in accordance with the the Natural Law and the dictates of the Scriptures, then I would pray for the stength to forgive our brother his failings seventy times seven times, as Jesus said. But so long as he's unrepentantly and indeed defiantly into his abominable sin as St. Paul called it, and basically shoving it in the world's face, then he's as much in the other camp as Ariel Sharon.
You're being naive, Kevin. Ultimately, no unrepentant faggot can be our friend, especially a Jewish faggot like Raimondo. We have no friends in this world other than ourselves. You of all people should understand that little lesson of life.
If my attempt at sixth-grade booger humor managed to flush that error out in the open, then it was a happy (albeit uninitended) result.
2005-03-16 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Wait just a second.
I'm not in any "movement" other than the Jesus movement. This seems to be a common misunderstanding.
While it's a pleasure talking to you non-Christian fellows, let me be clear that I have no comrades other than Christians.[/QUOTE]
Then, further, let it be stated that there is no 'movement', nor need there be. We are individuals with divergent interests and callings who all, to smaller or greater extent, [I]share areas of common overlapping mutual interest[/I]....these would be the survival and health of the white majority, if not the white race itself, and the restoration of a classical constitutional republic - or as close a restoration as possible.
The Christian fanatic will stamp his foot for state religion, the Nazi will demand the following races be utterly scapegoated and expelled, the anti-empire leftist will squawk about Mumia being locked down by the Man, but holy mother of God, you can't give [I]every [/I] bozo a personal 7am wakeup call and a mint on his pillow. Can we at least all agree that the two objectives listed above, if they are all that gets accomplished by 2020, will constitute [I]enough [/I] measurable improvement to avert national disaster and be adjudged [U]a job well done[/U]?
Because I'd like to point out one thing more. Some of us get so worked up over lurid New Nation News crime-stories and long range demographic oracles and Bible prophecy of seven-headed beasts rising out of the Potomac that we sometimes forget that by every sort of yardstick now in use, life is pretty good in America. No, not great, nor is it a patch on how it used to be, but there's a whole lot to like about this country, still. And as long as they don't pave the whole place over for a parking lot, there likely always [I]will [/I] be. I mean, that's sort of the point: it's outrageous and maddening that this country, in which life can be so blessedly rewarding and pleasant and worth living, can be hijacked and driven off a cliff by its corrupt elites and bone-stupid masses of its citizenry.
However, I'm not looking to transform America into a place I don't [I]recognize[/I]; I frankly fear whatever a New America might look like. I just wanna to fine-tune the suicidal madness and cultural barbarism [I]out [/I] of the country we've got now.
2005-03-16 20:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Edana over at the Phora was absolutely right, FReepers are indeed the maggots of cyberspace.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
They're really the lowest of the low.
A sort of middlebrow version of Dittoheads.
2005-03-16 21:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]. . . to be, but there's a whole lot to like about this country, still. And as long as they don't pave the whole place over for a parking lot, there likely always will be. I mean, that's sort of the point: it's outrageous and maddening that this country, in which life can be so blessedly rewarding and pleasant and worth living, can be hijacked and driven off a cliff by its corrupt elites and bone-stupid masses of its citizenry. .[/QUOTE]
I agree with the sentiment but I think you're being overly optimistic.
The United States of America as it stands today as HQ of the Imperial Corporation is an evil, evil place. I agree with Ayatollah Khomenei that America is the Great Satan.
35 million babies murdered legally. Homosexuality celebrated as normal and good, even morally superior to hetersexual marriage (not that most of you guys seem to have a problem with that). A government that refuses to enforce the most basic laws such as our nation's immigration laws, and the sheeple cheer. America exports abortion, feminism, pornography, promiscuous sex, and every form of spiritual pollution to the third world. The American Empire hates God. The American Empire is the enemy of God.
I believe that whatever blessings our great forefathers secured from a just God have been removed from us for our succumbing to the Sin of Babel. I see little to recommend this country now. The sooner the American Empire falls, the better off we all will be.
The Empire must die so that the Republic can rise from the dead.
And the beauty of it is that we need do nothing but cheer them on as they drive the thing over the cliff, at least for now. After they do we'll have to get busy picking up the pieces.
2005-03-16 21:18 | User Profile
See, thing is, Walter, you'd be confronted with the exact same cultural decay in Canada and Europe. But over there, you [I]might [/I] be put in jail for complaining about it on the Internet.
2005-03-16 21:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]See, thing is, Walter, you'd be confronted with the exact same cultural decay in Canada and Europe. But over there, you [I]might [/I] be put in jail for complaining about it on the Internet.[/QUOTE]
They're all just part of the Empire.
Such laws are first applicable to outlying subject peoples, and only with time will the conquering nation find themselves enthralled to them.
But itz coming, as they say. When Imperial America falls, the'll be freed along with us.
2005-03-16 22:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]See, thing is, Walter, you'd be confronted with the exact same cultural decay in Canada and Europe. But over there, you [I]might [/I] be put in jail for complaining about it on the Internet.[/QUOTE]
I have some faint hope for Europe. Far Right parties have more potential in smaller countries. Plus Europeans have a long tradition of dealing with Jews in the firmest way. We have none. They have a Catholic heritage to guide them.
If only we had a Pope to lead us rather than truckle with the enemy.
2005-03-17 06:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]... We must be prepared to dump our Jewish/libertarian/secular-humanist/sodomite allies at any moment. ... I thought he was a quarter Hebe.
Anyway, even an eigth is enough to warrant keeping a careful eye on him.
He can never really be trusted. [/QUOTE] You're alright Walter Yannis! :thumbsup:
2005-03-17 06:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Then, further, let it be stated that there is no 'movement', nor need there be. We are individuals with divergent interests and callings who all, to smaller or greater extent, share areas of common overlapping mutual interest....these would be the survival and health of the white majority, if not the white race itself, and the restoration of a classical constitutional republic - or as close a restoration as possible.
The Christian fanatic will stamp his foot for state religion... ...[/QUOTE] Agreed. But make no mistake, we White ââ¬ÅChristian fanaticsââ¬Â are the catalyst that will finally confront and neutralize the Zionist/Neocon threat. You non-Christians just don't have the ferver, Faith or frankly... the resolve to take a leading role in combating ââ¬Åthe tribe.ââ¬Â Why do you think the Jews and their Neocon surrogates are trying to destroy and discredit Christianity on all fronts?
Because they know that we ââ¬ÅWhite Christiansââ¬Â are the only ones who CAN stop them.
Once White Christians become ââ¬ÅJew aware...ââ¬Â itz over!
:wink:
2005-03-17 07:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Phantasm]Fascist. ââ¬â Nationalist who opposes Globalism. :smartass:[/QUOTE] Bingo.
2005-03-17 09:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But make no mistake, we White “Christian fanatics” are the catalyst that will finally confront and neutralize the Zionist/Neocon threat. You non-Christians just don't have the ferver, Faith or frankly... the resolve to take a leading role in combating “the tribe.” [/QUOTE]
Sure. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our weapon is fear. And surprise. Our weapon[B]s[/B] are fear and surprise, and a ruthless efficien - [I]Amongst our weaponry [/I] are such diverse elements as: fear; surprise; ruthless efficiency; and a fanatical devoton to-........ I'll come in again.
2005-03-17 16:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I'm not in any "movement" other than the Jesus movement. This seems to be a common misunderstanding.
While it's a pleasure talking to you non-Christian fellows, let me be clear that I have no comrades other than Christians.[/QUOTE]
If you think its wise to limit the potential for victory by eschewing everyone not primarily motivated by adherence to the Biblical text, knock yourself out, but I just don't see the rationale behind it. Did Jesus claim that persons of goodwill outside the ranks of his followers were innately part of the opposition, i.e you're either with us, or you're against us? Or is that merely your little contribution to contemporary theology?
2005-03-17 16:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Ultimately, no unrepentant faggot can be our friend, especially a Jewish faggot like Raimondo.[/QUOTE]
Its nearly impossible to say for certain, but I don't think he's a Jew. He claims to identify as an Italian-American (which fits the profile of one choosing the name "Justin," arguably), and while Jews reflexively lie about such things, I do not believe there is any evidence, at least none anyone has ever shown to me, that the man is a Jew, and thus is under suspicion of making a false claim of personal identification (even a Jew who sincerely rejects Judaism is, in many major respects, no longer a Jew, although they are such crafty liars, it'd be almost impossible to trust someone in that position, sadly).
2005-03-17 16:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree with the sentiment but I think you're being overly optimistic.
The United States of America as it stands today as HQ of the Imperial Corporation is an evil, evil place. I agree with Ayatollah Khomenei that America is the Great Satan.
35 million babies murdered legally. Homosexuality celebrated as normal and good, even morally superior to hetersexual marriage (not that most of you guys seem to have a problem with that). A government that refuses to enforce the most basic laws such as our nation's immigration laws, and the sheeple cheer. America exports abortion, feminism, pornography, promiscuous sex, and every form of spiritual pollution to the third world. The American Empire hates God. The American Empire is the enemy of God.
I believe that whatever blessings our great forefathers secured from a just God have been removed from us for our succumbing to the Sin of Babel. I see little to recommend this country now. The sooner the American Empire falls, the better off we all will be.
The Empire must die so that the Republic can rise from the dead.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, I think Walter is pretty much dead on target with the remarks above, other than for the portion I placed in bold, my response to which follows in the next paragraph.
I am about as strongly against the normalization (let alone the celebration) of homosexuality (particularly the seemingly more vile male variety, although lesbianism is a bad thing too), and am extremely opposed to the abominable foolishness known as "gay marriage." Those facts, however, do not preclude my drawing up a list of individual homosexuals with whom I do not have a personal problem with. So far, that list only has one name on it, i.e. that of Mr. Justin Raimiondo (unless the rumours are true about Ralph Nader, which, seeing as how they come almost exclusively from his hack Democratic Party enemies, I suspect they are not).
2005-03-17 16:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree with the sentiment but I think you're being overly optimistic.
The United States of America as it stands today as HQ of the Imperial Corporation is an evil, evil place. I agree with Ayatollah Khomenei that America is the Great Satan.
35 million babies murdered legally. Homosexuality celebrated as normal and good, even morally superior to hetersexual marriage (not that most of you guys seem to have a problem with that). A government that refuses to enforce the most basic laws such as our nation's immigration laws, and the sheeple cheer. America exports abortion, feminism, pornography, promiscuous sex, and every form of spiritual pollution to the third world. The American Empire hates God. The American Empire is the enemy of God.
I believe that whatever blessings our great forefathers secured from a just God have been removed from us for our succumbing to the Sin of Babel. I see little to recommend this country now. The sooner the American Empire falls, the better off we all will be.
The Empire must die so that the Republic can rise from the dead.
And the beauty of it is that we need do nothing but cheer them on as they drive the thing over the cliff, at least for now. After they do we'll have to get busy picking up the pieces.[/QUOTE]
Well put Walter, and darn, that's [U]exactly[/U] how I feel. Also, the fact that the 'Kwa Empire breeds at an alarming rate--heretical, sick, and dangerous religious [U]cults[/U] of all persuasions. It's quite fitting for the Great Satan.
2005-03-17 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]If you think its wise to limit the potential for victory by eschewing everyone not primarily motivated by adherence to the Biblical text, knock yourself out, but I just don't see the rationale behind it. Did Jesus claim that persons of goodwill outside the ranks of his followers were innately part of the opposition, i.e you're either with us, or you're against us? Or is that merely your little contribution to contemporary theology?[/QUOTE] You misunderstand me.
I'm saying that I'm all for such tactical alliances. As I said, I give money regularly to Antiwar.com, whenever it has a fundraiser (quarterly, I think).
But that doesn't change the fact that I'm in a movement that is fundamentally at odds with Raimondo's faggotry. My only point is that we must always keep the fact that our cooperation with enemies like Raimondo is for tactical benefit only.
I get nervous when folks like you start to heap praise on a man like Raimondo who loudly proclaims his total allegiance to the Culture of Death. Let's always keep this straight in our own mind and exercise a little restraint in praising the strange bedfellows the struggle with Jewish supremacy makes for us.
2005-03-17 17:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe] Did Jesus claim that persons of goodwill outside the ranks of his followers were innately part of the opposition, i.e you're either with us, or you're against us? Or is that merely your little contribution to contemporary theology?[/QUOTE] Glad you asked that, Kevin.
The answer is that yes, in fact Jesus did so claim:
[QUOTE]Matthew 12:30 (King James Version) He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.[/QUOTE] I take it that you didn't receive much by way of religious instruction as a child?
2005-03-18 00:16 | User Profile
Kevin, Raimondo's 1/4 Jewish ancestry is well known. Here, fellow mischling/marrano Richard Poe (Pogrebissky) notes it:
[url]http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?s=ward[/url]
And it is tossed around in various places, uncontradicted.
2005-03-18 02:51 | User Profile
Has anyone read Raimondo's 9/11 expose? It was receiving praise at VNN.
Walter, I notice that you quote Leviticus. Do you follow Jewish dietary laws and all of that too? I thought Christians obeyed the New Testament? I guess I never quite understand when Christians quote Leviticus. I know you eat pork, so what's the deal?
2005-03-18 03:49 | User Profile
Walter Yannis and Sertorius,
Justin Raimondo has written many great articles, but do not forget his sick article ââ¬ÅNEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCEââ¬Â And remember he praised JR of Freeperdom for purging "racists" from the membership. I donââ¬â¢t care if he likes goats, but I will never let him live down this article:
NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE [url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120400.html[/url]
2005-03-18 03:53 | User Profile
Personally, if we're going to worry about such things, I think Raimondo's alleged Jewish background is more cause for concern. When his leanings were brought to my attention, by the editor of a well-known right-wing magazine, I didn't really give it a second thought.
Keep in mind, however, Raimondo is no white nationalist. In fact, I recall him speaking out against "racial nationalists." I'm not even sure if he's for immigration reform, or if he could even be considered a "paleoconservative." Maybe he's just a Libertoid (=libertarian) who dislikes Jews.
2005-03-18 03:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis and Sertorius,
Justin Raimondo has written many great articles, but do not forget his sick article ââ¬ÅNEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCEââ¬Â And remember he praised JR of Freeperdom for purging "racists" from the membership. I donââ¬â¢t care if he likes goats, but I will never let him live down this article:
NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE [url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120400.html[/url][/QUOTE]
So true. I think it goes without saying that Raimondo would hate us very publically if it was ever worth the bother to him.
2005-03-18 08:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Kevin, Raimondo's 1/4 Jewish ancestry is well known. Here, fellow mischling/marrano Richard Poe (Pogrebissky) notes it:
[url]http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?s=ward[/url]
And it is tossed around in various places, uncontradicted.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that reference.
Very important.
So, Raimondo is a full quarter Jewish. And he's proud to be gay.
He's your pal, Kevin?
Give me a break.
He's an enemy who happens to be going our way, at least so it seems. How do you know he isn't on a mission from the Sandhedrin to subvert the white and Christian response to their attack?
2005-03-18 08:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Has anyone read Raimondo's 9/11 expose? It was receiving praise at VNN.
Walter, I notice that you quote Leviticus. Do you follow Jewish dietary laws and all of that too? I thought Christians obeyed the New Testament? I guess I never quite understand when Christians quote Leviticus. I know you eat pork, so what's the deal?[/QUOTE]
We follow the OT to the extent it wasn't superceded by the NT.
While the dietary laws were clearly repealed by the NT, the law on sodomy set down in Leviticus was specifically approved by Paul in Romans (used the same word "abomination: to describe it.) Actually, the NT stricture on this is even broader than the OT version, inasmuch as it specifically includes lesbianism in its definition of "abomination."
Did that answer your question?
2005-03-18 08:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Personally, if we're going to worry about such things, I think Raimondo's alleged Jewish background is more cause for concern. [/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree.
The fight is between the Culture of Life (lead by the Church) and the Culture of Death (lead by the Jews).
Culture derives from cult. Raimondo as a proud sodomite is a devotee of the Church of Death.
Homosexual acts are one of the sacraments of this Church of Death, along with abortion. Raimondo proclaims his membership in the Church of Death and is by his account a regular partaker in one of its central sacraments.
And he's a Jew to boot.
In truth, Raimondo is an enemy, let's not fall for the ruse that he's a friend just because he says some things about the Jews that we find convenient. As far as we know, he may be the "good cop" to Schwartz's "bad cop" (which would explain why he wasn't Casaleroed, as Tex put it). He might be as dangerous as Rabbi Lapin - a sworn enemy whom gullible Christians take as an ally.
And all of it based only on the word of a Jew.
You do the math, guys.
2005-03-18 08:38 | User Profile
Sert: I respectfully object to having this thread moved to Miscellaneous.
This is at the very heart of the struggle with the neo-Cons, inasmuch as we're talking about a Jewish sodomite who is purportedly anti-Neocon.
I think it should be moved back to that forum. I have no objection to splitting the thread, since indeed there are two different subjects here.
2005-03-18 09:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Because I'd like to point out one thing more. Some of us get so worked up over lurid New Nation News crime-stories and long range demographic oracles and Bible prophecy of seven-headed beasts rising out of the Potomac that we sometimes forget that by every sort of yardstick now in use, life is pretty good in America. No, not great, nor is it a patch on how it used to be, but there's a whole lot to like about this country, still. [/QUOTE]
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=106796#post106796]Tell that to the Phillipinos[/URL].
2005-03-18 11:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Glad you asked that, Kevin.
The answer is that yes, in fact Jesus did so claim:
Matthew 12:30 (King James Version) He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
I take it that you didn't receive much by way of religious instruction as a child?[/QUOTE]Jesus also said the opposite:
Mark 9:40: "He that is not against us is for us."
As far as Raimondo being a queer, let me say first that I find homosexuality disgusting. I don't think that because of the Bible, which is just ancient mythology as far as I'm concerned, but simply on account of my gut feelings. (Incidentally, I think anal sex is disgusting even when it's done with a woman, though that's not nearly as bad as doing it with a man.) Nevertheless, the main problem I have with fags is that so many of them try to force-feed acceptance of their sexual practices on society in an effort to legitimize their perversion. They seek to convince both themselves and others that they're "normal"; to that end, the gay community in general is very politically active.
So, what about Raimondo? Well, I have yet to hear him publicly advocate the homosexual lifestyle, though perhaps he has done so. In any event, his current political activity seems to be well-focused on exposing the neocons. He is publicly saying words that urgently need to be said, and though he's not the only one fighting the neocon propaganda machine, he seems to have a much larger audience than most other like-minded commentators. In short, Raimondo is invaluable to our efforts. I wish he weren't a turd-tickler, but that's just the way things are, and it's a minor fault compared to the importance of his work, IMO.
2005-03-18 12:27 | User Profile
The thing about gays is their tendency to capitalize on their recent political-bloc status to now try to insist that homosexuality is and always was a thing other than a method of rutting: it's a 'lifestyle' (forced upon you at birth), an aesthetic, a vital building block of a healthy society, a genetic marker of cultural superiority, and a theme-park ride [B]no [/B] child should be denied a ride on by a repressive society or hate-addled backward parent or guardian. It won't be long before a government printing office begins distributing brightly colored 'sexual-orientation' brochures to schoolchildren the way Florida real-estate scams do: "LIVE THE GOOD LIFE OF SUN, SAND AND SURF WITH A KIELBASA TICKLING YOUR SPINE FROM THE INSIDE!" (Umm...but why even portray it as positive then? Why should anyone be allowed to 'choose' what we keep being told is imprinted upon us at birth like-it-or-not?)
Then again, you know you're being deliberately propagandized when they start digging up the long-dead to 'revise' your knowledge of them. Soon, it's no longer just popular entertainers and public figures being exhumed for this treatment, and we get "Lincoln was gay" and "Jefferson lusted after blacks". And isn't it funny that - in the DNA age of Absolute certainty - one need only make a charge based upon the flimsiest circumstantial evidence at the long-dead to have it accepted as 'proven fact' in the public arena?
Me, I say if everything we're told about homosexuality is true, then why should homosexuals be coy and pretend that whatever they've said or done or accomplished in their lives, they've done on their own, as individuals, irrespective of their preferred method of ****ing? Give credit where it's due!
[I]How did you do it?[/I] [COLOR=Blue]Well, hard work, and research, and lots of trial and error..........nahhh; who am I kidding? I got jacked in the ass every chance I got, and when I couldn't, I beat off while reading the boys' -underwear advertising supplements in the Times. [I]That's [/I] how I developed the cure for cancer.[/COLOR]
2005-03-18 13:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Jesus also said the opposite:
Mark 9:40: "He that is not against us is for us."
[/QUOTE]
He said that in reference to his followers who were not of his immediate group - people casting out demons in His name.
Thus, IMHO Jesus preached one standard for those who are close to us (you're with us to the extent you don't directly contradict us) and quite another one for our enemies (you're against our basic project and so nothing you can do will be okay).
It makes perfect sense to me. I think that's an attitude we Christians need to work on with each other. We get to talking about our differences and the next thing you know we've forgotten that we have everything - HIM - in common. If my non-Catholic brothers in Christ aren't against me, then they are with me. And vice versa.
In regard to Raimondo, we're talking about a guy who's obviously in the other camp, so nothing he can do will really be acceptable, at least on a strategic level. But he is indeed very useful on a tactical level, which is why I give Antiwar.com money.
All I'm saying is that he's providing an important service right now, but keep an eye on him. This is just a temporary arrangement.
2005-03-18 13:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We follow the OT to the extent it wasn't superceded by the NT.
While the dietary laws were clearly repealed by the NT, the law on sodomy set down in Leviticus was specifically approved by Paul in Romans (used the same word "abomination: to describe it.) Actually, the NT stricture on this is even broader than the OT version, inasmuch as it specifically includes lesbianism in its definition of "abomination."
Did that answer your question?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that answers my question, but why not reference Paul to begin with and ignore Old Testament Jewish law?
2005-03-18 14:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Yes, that answers my question, but why not reference Paul to begin with and ignore Old Testament Jewish law?[/QUOTE]
Because Paul himself referenced Leviticus.
2005-03-18 14:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Sert: I respectfully object to having this thread moved to Miscellaneous.[/QUOTE]
I understand and furthermore I think you are right. That was a temporary placement.
[QUOTE]This is at the very heart of the struggle with the neo-Cons, inasmuch as we're talking about a Jewish sodomite who is purportedly anti-Neocon.[/QUOTE]
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Walter. Raimondo, in my opinion, has paid his dues. He is hated with a passion by the Neocons for he is effective in showing their lies and who they really serve. I don't think they are capable of running such a sophisticated false flag operation.
[QUOTE]I think it should be moved back to that forum. I have no objection to splitting the thread, since indeed there are two different subjects here.[/QUOTE]
It really should be placed in the Christianity folder, as this is a religious thread more than one about neocons. I may do that before it's over. I do think that it is a shame that a thread which originally focused on Schwartz (52 posts) should have taken such a tangent to being focused on Raimondo. (55 posts) Schwartz would be pleased.
2005-03-18 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]What do you mean that you "[I]enjoyed him [/I] very much at the Randolph Club?"
Alone or with others?[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed speaking with him and found his speechifying very provocative.
Unfortunately, like I said, there are some telltale disconnects which bar him from ever being effective at the essential level regardless how diligent and admirable are his efforts to fight the good fight otherwise.
Homosexuality is an essential rejection of reality which, if rationalized as anything but aberrant, leads to all manner of error ... such as his belief in the relationship between wealth and family size. Breeders who limit their family size do it because they can't afford it or don't wish to be bothered with kids, not because they want to be "more wealthy".
Ted Turner is wealthy. Which of his kids would he choose if actually practicing the Moral Choice he preaches?
2005-03-18 19:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Nevertheless, the main problem I have with fags is that so many of them try to force-feed acceptance of their sexual practices on society in an effort to legitimize their perversion. They seek to convince both themselves and others that they're "normal"; to that end, the gay community in general is very politically active.
[/QUOTE]I don't think the gay community's propaganda is promoting the acceptance of homosexual sex as much as it is promoting all other aspects of the gay culture, e.g., the caricatures you see in films (the gay character in Stepford Wives comes to mind) and shows such as Will & Grace and Gay Eye for the Straight Guy. Hell, alot those characteristically "gay' attributes, such as appreciating fine food and wine, fashion, gardens, etc., is infinitely more in keeping with cherishing Western European Civilization than is watching college basketball and raising wiggers. Most homosexuals I've met are intelligent, cultured, and often very humorous. It's a shame these qualities won't be instilled in future generations of white offspring (and that is essentially the reason why traditional Christian moral teaching opposes it).
2005-03-18 20:05 | User Profile
Count me among the nays. Open homosexuality is only one sign of our cultural and moral decay, neither the ugliest nor the most dangerous. And since any effort to restore moral standards will have to involve some hypocrisy and respect for the privacy of others (in that regard, the American Spectator's expose of the Clintons' sex lives was particularly vile) I do not see discreet homosexuality as an issue.
What is far more problematic about Raimondo is his stand on racial issues. Any one else recall the Free Republic thread on an article by James Lubinskas about paleoconservatism? A white nationalist, "Irmin," showed up. In response to his calm, well-reasoned statements, Raimondo shrieked "racism," and called on Jim Robinson to ban him.
2005-03-19 00:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mwdallas]Kevin, Raimondo's 1/4 Jewish ancestry is well known. Here, fellow mischling/marrano Richard Poe (Pogrebissky) notes it:
[url]http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?s=ward[/url]
And it is tossed around in various places, uncontradicted.[/QUOTE]
Is it his maternal grandmother who's a Jew? Because if not, it doesn't necessarily count for very much.
2005-03-19 00:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Has anyone read Raimondo's 9/11 expose? It was receiving praise at VNN.[/QUOTE]
I've read it. Not much new in it, but its a very worthy compilation, and a lot of even well-informed people would have missed some of it.
2005-03-19 01:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]All I'm saying is that he's providing an important service right now, but keep an eye on him. This is just a temporary arrangement.[/QUOTE]
If in the immediate aftermath of an anti-establishment rebellion, you were temporarily empowered to make judicial decisions in whatever part of Wisconsin you're in, and Justin Raimondo were found in your jurisdiction, would you order his execution as a sodomite?
2005-03-19 02:31 | User Profile
Its a darned shame that Raimundo is a homosexual. He writes very well on foreign policy and I agree with him 90% of the time on matters of International Affairs. We were both on the Reform Party Foreign Affairs Committee back in the late 90's which never actually met. I met him once and he is a polite and pleasant fellow.
However, in building a New America, there can be no room for people of his persuasion. In light of his many positive achievements, I would not put him up against the wall for his twin crimes of being a homosexual AND a Libertarian. He would be one of the few to have his citizenship revoked and be given a free plane ticket to Switzerland or some other comfortable place of exile.
2005-03-19 03:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]In light of his many positive achievements, I would not put him up against the wall for his twin crimes of being a homosexual AND a Libertarian. He would be one of the few to have his citizenship revoked and be given a free plane ticket to Switzerland or some other comfortable place of exile.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I tend to regard libertarianism more as a form of stupidity/naiveity, rather than a conscious evil (as would apply to most of the leading neo-"conservatives" and liberals, for example), and thus not a crime.
2005-03-19 03:25 | User Profile
As if socialism hasn't demonstrated itself to be generally a source of almost constant death and destruction, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it [B]a form of evil[/B], either. When governments order men off to give their lives in their eternally recurring senseless wars I think the deserters are the only ones with any real intelligence.
2005-03-19 04:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]I enjoyed speaking with him and found his speechifying very provocative.
Unfortunately, like I said, there are some telltale disconnects which bar him from ever being effective at the essential level regardless how diligent and admirable are his efforts to fight the good fight otherwise.
Homosexuality is an essential rejection of reality which, if rationalized as anything but aberrant, leads to all manner of error ... such as his belief in the relationship between wealth and family size. Breeders who limit their family size do it because they can't afford it or don't wish to be bothered with kids, not because they want to be "more wealthy".
Ted Turner is wealthy. Which of his kids would he choose if actually practicing the Moral Choice he preaches?[/QUOTE]
Askel,
What do you mean by "being effective at the essential level"? Any San Francisco bohemian might seem a tad alien to a Traditionalist Southern gathering--be he straight or homosexual...
2005-03-19 06:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]If in the immediate aftermath of an anti-establishment rebellion, you were temporarily empowered to make judicial decisions in whatever part of Wisconsin you're in, and Justin Raimondo were found in your jurisdiction, would you order his execution as a sodomite?[/QUOTE]
He'd first be given a chance to emigrate or reform. Upon conviction of a second act of sodomy, and again if I'm dictator, he'd be placed permanently on probation involving an ankle braclet and Depo Provera implants (kills the sex drive).
If he broke probation by removing the implants or committing another act of sodomy, I would have him executed.
Of course, the fact that he's a Jew would probably result in automatic deportation to Israel without regard to his sodomy, but I'm still not clear of the facts on that.
2005-03-19 09:02 | User Profile
Last thoughts on Raimondo.
One, he really [I]isn't [/I] a very good writer, folks. Look at any of his columns and you'll find it shot through and through with amateur-dramatics and ceaseless self-congratulation. And, sorry, but he [I]does [/I] have an annoying tendency to pile surmise upon substance; thus, if anything, blurring his argument in the pursuit of building his case. Effective at times, absolutely; "good", not really.
Two, maybe about once every two years will he make even [I]tangential [/I] reference to his chosen orientation. The rock-ribbed uberChristians who publicly call down fire upon his unbiblical ass have almost all gleaned that info from VNN. You remember VNN? That's the devil-rag those same Christians wouldn't be caught dead reading, ever. Because nobody on this thread just now discovered Justin's "secret", and since Raimondo keeps it under his hat for the most part, well, shoot, they hadda get that knoweledge [I]somewhere[/I]. The website that never passes up a chance to point out [I]Reamundo's [/I] sexual peccadilloes, f'rinstance.
Three, for a guy in his early fifties, Raimondo looks pretty good, assuming that's a recent photo. I'd always assumed he was 35, maybe 40. Given that he is past 50, that means he got through that first wave of AIDS intact, which says (to me) that he's likely not a ten-cocks-a-night bathhouse prowler but a queer with a boyfriend. That might not count for much among the Talibunnic Court of Inquiry, but I'm sure it fuels Andrew ("HIV-positive male seeking same for barebacking") Sullivan's distaste for "Dennis", and possibly Suleyman's as well.
Four, I like Raimondo because he drives the Likudniks and the goyishe camp-followers apeshit. Like Kevin and AY said, that's more than any of us can claim. Besides, I'd guarantee you St Patrick Buchanan - a holy figure to many here - considers Raimondo a good friend and worth any ten members of the Christian Taliban, swearing allegiance to their fantasy El Cid on an Internet message board. Hmmm....now how to attack Buchanan without disrespecting Buchanan? [I]That [/I] little conundrum, I leave for you Raimondo-bashing Pat-defenders to navigate through.
2005-03-19 10:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Because nobody on this thread just now discovered Justin's "secret", and since Raimondo keeps it under his hat for the most part, well, shoot, they hadda get that knoweledge somewhere. The website that never passes up a chance to point out Reamundo's sexual peccadilloes, f'rinstance. .[/QUOTE]
Good comments overall, but that's just not true.
He talks frequently of his orientation.
Just from memory he allluded to the "activities" that would take place at his house on the weekend and mentioned his love for Romans because they wore cute little tunics.
And I never read VNN.
You're very wide of the mark here, Ragman.
2005-03-19 10:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE]He talks frequently of his orientation[/QUOTE]
Only in response to one of these Suleymanic-type smear articvles, which is (maybe) twice a year.
On the other hand, VNN spintros regularly link to Raimondo articles - twice a week, usually - and rarely miss a chance to crack on Justin's ass-banditry.
VNN is the source of most of the Right's "awareness" of Raimondo's sex-life. Whether you read it there, or learned of it from another fellow who read it there, is unimportant: it's [I]still [/I] the original wellspring of the knowledge. And yes, Linder's outing of him predates Schwartz's. I wouldn't be surprised if he "researched" his screed at VNN.
Raimondo, to his credit, is not the sort of homosexual who seeks to be famous because he's homosexual. Making any but the most reluctant references to his gayness (in response to hit-pieces like Sandalio's) would only distract his target audience from the focus of his actual toil, the neos and Likudniks, ie, the "War Party".
2005-03-19 14:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Askel,
What do you mean by "being effective at the essential level"? Any San Francisco bohemian might seem a tad alien to a Traditionalist Southern gathering--be he straight or homosexual...[/QUOTE]
Nary a truer thing was ever said.
2005-03-19 14:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Upon conviction of a second act of sodomy, ...[/QUOTE]
Well heck, how do you know Raimondo (Rearmondo?) is a sodomite to begin with? I guess it should be pointed out that not all homos are sodomites just as many heterosexuals are. Hopefully, you are not simply defining oral sex as sodomite (sodomicious?) activity because if you are then most of us are in trouble. You know don't you that not all fags are butt buddies?
2005-03-19 15:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]However, in building a New America, there can be no room for people of his persuasion. In light of his many positive achievements, I would not put him up against the wall for his twin crimes of being a homosexual AND a Libertarian. He would be one of the few to have his citizenship revoked and be given a free plane ticket to Switzerland or some other comfortable place of exile.[/QUOTE]Good idea. My sentiments too.
However, as a White Nationalist who is nothing if not thoughtful, kind, & sensitive, I wouldn't want to inflict such punishment on my Euro kith & kin in Switzerland. Instead, I propose that we send sodomites like Justin to Israel. After all, as we all know, the Tribe has been undermining Western nations with subversive ideologies like homosexualism, feminism, & multiculturalism for decades. Why not give some of the 'love' back? They deserve each other. :thumbsup:
2005-03-19 16:07 | User Profile
Would you fellas have sent Leonardo DaVinci packing? (no pun intended).
Seriously, not all, not even most homosexuals are bad citizens. The parades can be done away with, enlistment in the military can be done away with, bathhouses can be done away with, pro-homosexual indoctrination can be done away with, after that it would be a much less noticable and obnoxious culture, and we would retain our window dressers, interior decorators, hair stylists, male librarians, waiters and occasional DaVinci's, Socrateses, Alexanders, Wildes, etc etc etc.
2005-03-19 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Hopefully, you are not simply defining oral sex as sodomite (sodomicious?) activity[/QUOTE]
I believe the term you're after here is "sodomitic."
2005-03-20 00:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Seriously, not all, not even most homosexuals are bad citizens. The parades can be done away with, enlistment in the military can be done away with, bathhouses can be done away with, pro-homosexual indoctrination can be done away with, after that it would be a much less noticable and obnoxious culture, and we would retain our window dressers, interior decorators, hair stylists, male librarians, waiters and occasional DaVinci's, Socrateses, Alexanders, Wildes, etc etc etc.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much my position (on a lot of things, in fact, other than the presence of Jews and other nonWhites in my country, where I become an absolutist, and if unfortunately necessary, a genocidalist), i.e. suppress as gently as one reasonably can, rather than exterminate.
2005-03-20 08:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Well heck, how do you know Raimondo (Rearmondo?) is a sodomite to begin with? I guess it should be pointed out that not all homos are sodomites just as many heterosexuals are. Hopefully, you are not simply defining oral sex as sodomite (sodomicious?) activity because if you are then most of us are in trouble. You know don't you that not all fags are butt buddies?[/QUOTE] I never knew a faggot for whom fudge-packing wasn't the activitiy of choice.
And I've known lots of faggots.
That's like saying heterosexuals are known to do other things than intercourse, which is true, but given their druthers most heterosexuals will get it on, because let's face it that's where it's at.
Same with queers.
2005-03-20 10:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Only in response to one of these Suleymanic-type smear articvles, which is (maybe) twice a year.
On the other hand, VNN spintros regularly link to Raimondo articles - twice a week, usually - and rarely miss a chance to crack on Justin's ass-banditry.
VNN is the source of most of the Right's "awareness" of Raimondo's sex-life. Whether you read it there, or learned of it from another fellow who read it there, is unimportant: it's [I]still [/I] the original wellspring of the knowledge. And yes, Linder's outing of him predates Schwartz's. I wouldn't be surprised if he "researched" his screed at VNN.
Raimondo, to his credit, is not the sort of homosexual who seeks to be famous because he's homosexual. Making any but the most reluctant references to his gayness (in response to hit-pieces like Sandalio's) would only distract his target audience from the focus of his actual toil, the neos and Likudniks, ie, the "War Party".[/QUOTE]
You're a bright guy, Spider--often brilliant. Are you really suggesting that Raimondo is a lesser writer than Alex Linder--whose Streicheresque frisson feeds the carp after the third reading?
2005-03-20 11:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]And I've known lots of faggots.[/QUOTE]
In the Biblical sense?
2005-03-20 13:33 | User Profile
Howard:
Raimondo is writing to a particular sort of audience, one that skews young and left and views itself with utmost seriousness (as young leftish types are wont to do). He, and ANTIWAR, aim towards being a credible alternative to mainstream journalism on matters of realpolitik and empire. This is a niche requiring at least the convincing [I]appearance [/I] of sober impartiality. Unfortunately, like all post-Mailer/Capote New Journalists, you can't get through the opening sentence without getting your feet stuck in a bog of emotionalism, hyperbole and self-referential self-congratulation. The type of truth he's trying to disseminate is a lot like revenge, in that it's best served cold. But when you get a lot of gushing fan mail that reads as though it were originally intended for Bono, I suppose it's hard to resist the urge to set your Strat on fire during the second encore.
Linder, although he's wearing out his welcome with his aspirations toward legitimacy, writes scathing, profane jeremiads delivering rhetorical blows against the Empire that were never intended to appear impartial or judicious.Literally every second idea Alex has had - the Forum, Bill White, commandeering the NA, the "White Freedom Party", ShopWhite, etc - has been a bad one. I admit that freely. But we're not talking about the baggage and the ancillary stuff, we're talking about the writing right now.
This is a bone of contention I've chewed over with a hundred different people on venues like this who chuckle despite themselves at Matt Taibbi yet go full-Margaret-Dumont at the mention of Linder's name. [I]A satirist is no damn good to anyone unless he Goes Too Far.[/I] If VNN had remained as it began - a blog of spintros, rants and commentaries and wholly the work of one unmistakable individual - Linder would have far more cachet and credibility as a crank and outlaw satirist than he will ever come near as a would-be Leader of the White Race. Hell, those spintros would eventually have been collected in book form and become a sort of underground classsic in years to come, in much the same way that the literary terrorists who were once banned and shunned - Miller, Bataille, Burroughs, de Sade -all got published as adults-only paperbacks in the 60s by The Grove Press and similar neolegit imprints, and thence wended their way to the sort of dark respectability they could never have attained contemporaneously, when their venom was far too dangerous for publishers to risk marketing to the public.
Is Linder a better writer than Raimondo? Unquestionably. Get past all the hyperlinks and Justin's material is plagued by a schoolboy's plodding earnestness and barely-hidden insecurities. Linder, at his best, always wrote like a man who's going to face the same exact firing squad at dawn whether he repents his sins or not, so why bother disingenuously recanting a single word? Who would [B]you [/B] expect to create more vivid and indelible prose?
I get exhausted of this Sisyphean labor of 'defending' Linder, because [B]A[/B] he keeps shooting himself in the foot completely under his own power no matter how much I wish he would [I]stop doing that[/I]; and [B]B[/B] the people who dislike him hate like him Hatfields hate McCoys. But that sort of furnace-like heat he generates only underlines that, for good or ill, he's tapping a live nerve and the "shock" being caused is the shock of recogition. If he were to decide, one day, to defang himself and soften his jagged edges to vanilla smoothness - to become a WN Dave Barry - nobody would take offense at his wildest pronouncements: [I]Jews [/I] would write him fan letters. I've got a lot of misgivings about Alex but I'd never in a million years wish [B]that [/B] upon him.
2005-03-20 13:37 | User Profile
I am all amazed… you actually believe this sodomite and knowingly support this queer jew.
One word comes to mind…fools
It’s time for a white female Christian president! You men are just too foolish.
2005-03-20 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]In the Biblical sense?[/QUOTE]
Got me!
2005-03-20 14:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]One word comes to mind…[B]fools [/B]
It’s time for a white female Christian president! You men are just too foolish.[/QUOTE]
Right. Tell us again how God speaks to George W Bush, Savior of Christian America, and the sun periodically shines out of Laura's lemony-fresh sphincter, Gabby.
2005-03-20 15:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]the sun periodically shines out of Laura's lemony-fresh sphincter, Gabby.[/QUOTE]
LOL! You just helped to prove my point.
2005-03-20 15:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Right. Tell us again how God speaks to George W Bush, Savior of Christian America, and the sun periodically shines out of Laura's lemony-fresh sphincter, Gabby.[/QUOTE] LMAO!
Gabrielle, when Bush was warning about Saddam's WMDs, you undoubtedly believed him. Hell, you probably STILL think it was all just an "honest mistake" or "faulty intelligence," forged documents regarding Nigerian uranium notwithstanding. Contrast that with what Raimondo as well as many posters here were saying repeatedly during Bush's rush to war: the claims of Saddam having WMDs were bogus. We were right, and you and the other FReepers were wrong.
And if you have a problem with Jews, then why do you support a president who is obviously their tool? Or do you think Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, and all the rest of Bush's handlers are Christian?
2005-03-20 15:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]LMAO!
Gabrielle, when Bush was warning about Saddam's WMDs, you undoubtedly believed him. Hell, you probably STILL think it was all just an "honest mistake" or "faulty intelligence," forged documents regarding Nigerian uranium notwithstanding. Contrast that with what Raimondo as well as many posters here were saying repeatedly during Bush's rush to war: the claims of Saddam having WMDs were bogus. We were right, and you and the other FReepers were wrong.
And if you have a problem with Jews, then why do you support a president who is obviously their tool? Or do you think Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, and all the rest of Bush's handlers are Christian?[/QUOTE]
Again, I had only two choices: Bush or Kerry. Only a fool or a moron would have helped Kerry win.
You are a fool for believing Raimondo in anything. It has been proven that Bush received faulty intelligence. Where have you been the last ten months?
Bush has two major faults that stop him from being a great president. The first one is that he believes in ** Judeo ** Christianity, and the second one is that he cannot understand the non-white problems in this nation because his sister-in-law, nephews and nieces are non-white.
I think we should pray that God helps President Bush to see the errors of his way, and that he has the strength to over come them.
2005-03-20 15:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I am all amazedââ¬Â¦ you actually believe this sodomite and knowingly support this queer jew.
One word comes to mindââ¬Â¦fools
Itââ¬â¢s time for a white female Christian president! You men are just too foolish.[/QUOTE]
Let's focus on the good things that Justin does.
A female president? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! It's bad enough that women can vote.
2005-03-20 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]1. Let's focus on the good things that Justin does.
---------[/QUOTE]
Franco, Justin is there for one reason only… that is to deceive our people.
You must understand that they will always give you a certain amount of truth, so that they can lead you into their traps. It is a very old trick that our people repeatedly fall for. SAD!
Also, I wouldn’t laugh too loud if I were you about a female president.
2005-03-20 16:25 | User Profile
I have a question: Did Mr.Raimondo ever speak out against the Bosnia War?
The war in which we were killing white Christian people!
2005-03-20 16:25 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
I am. :lol: By the time that stupid s.o.b. and his Stupid Party clones get done, they will have screwed over so many folks that there will be a good chance that Hillary can win if she can keep the crazies under control and sound the right notes about immigration. She'll arrive in D.C. with that strap on (assuming she needs one) and ready to use it on them. You had a choice and you blew it. Now, you will get exactly what you deserve.
2005-03-20 16:27 | User Profile
If you ever read any of his articles you would know that he was against US involvement in the Balkans. Who is being used here?
2005-03-20 16:30 | User Profile
Walter Yannis,
I can not disagree with that; [QUOTE]*"I respectfully disagree.
The fight is between the Culture of Life (lead by the Church) and the Culture of Death (lead by the Jews).
Culture derives from cult. Raimondo as a proud sodomite is a devotee of the Church of Death.
Homosexual acts are one of the sacraments of this Church of Death, along with abortion. Raimondo proclaims his membership in the Church of Death and is by his account a regular partaker in one of its central sacraments.
And he's a Jew to boot.
In truth, Raimondo is an enemy, let's not fall for the ruse that he's a friend just because he says some things about the Jews that we find convenient. As far as we know, he may be the "good cop" to Schwartz's "bad cop" (which would explain why he wasn't Casaleroed, as Tex put it). He might be as dangerous as Rabbi Lapin - a sworn enemy whom gullible Christians take as an ally.
And all of it based only on the word of a Jew.
You do the math, guys."*-Walter Yannis[/QUOTE]
Do not forget his sick article "NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE" And remember he praised JR of Free Republic for purging "racists" from the membership.
NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE [url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120400.html[/url]
2005-03-20 16:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Gabrielle,
I am. :lol: By the time that stupid s.o.b. and his Stupid Party clones get done, they will have screwed over so many folks that there will be a good chance that Hillary can win if she can keep the crazies under control and sound the right notes about immigration. She'll arrive in D.C. with that strap on (assuming she needs one) and ready to use it on them. You had a choice and you blew it. Now, you will get exactly what you deserve.[/QUOTE]
Do not crow too loudly, Sertorius.
2005-03-20 16:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Walter Yannis,
I can not disagree with that;
Do not forget his sick article "NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE" And remember he praised JR of Free Republic for purging "racists" from the membership.
NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE [url]http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120400.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I wonder about Pat sometimes. He does everything he can to ruin a conservative’s chance of winning, and then, at the last ** second**, he endorses the same candidate he was working diligently to destroy. He has done this more than once…
2005-03-20 16:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Franco, Justin is there for one reason onlyââ¬Â¦ that is to deceive our people. .[/QUOTE]
I don't know if that's true, but it is sufficiently within the realm of possibility to warrant heightened scepticism vis a vis Raimondo.
2005-03-20 16:52 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
The problem isn't Pat as much as it is the Stupid party keeps running people who aren't conservatives. Bush certainly isn't one, his rhetoric notwithstanding. In the past, part of Pat's runs have been to get these clowns to move to the right. As for Pat endorsing Bush this last time around over future Supreme Court nominees, well that endorsement didn't work for me nor did the one for Bush Sr. in 1992.
I would prefer that he didn't endorse any of these jerks.
2005-03-20 20:38 | User Profile
Thanks for the thoughtful and substantive response, Rachy.
Is Linder a better writer than Raimondo? Unquestionably. Get past all the hyperlinks and Justin's material is plagued by a schoolboy's plodding earnestness and barely-hidden insecurities. Linder, at his best, always wrote like a man who's going to face the same exact firing squad at dawn whether he repents his sins or not, so why bother disingenuously recanting a single word? Who would you expect to create more vivid and indelible prose?
We'll have to accede to the wisdom of your ancient ancestors and not dispute the essential gustibus at issue, here. If you were more familiar with Raimondo's books and other non-journalistic writings I think you'd give him more credit.
Alex may have spent too much time emptying Bobby Tyrell's spitoons...the Mencken/Goebbels influences mark his style too heavily and transparently. And yes, the Roper~Moran~Bill White~NA~Miller disasters have done nothing to engender respect for the man behind the keyboard.
2005-03-20 21:53 | User Profile
Howard, I concur: the baggage isn't destroying him, it's come to define him....that's worse.
But the question is this: if Linder were no more palpable a presence than a Ygg or a Carol Ward, ie, an individual voice on the Web speaking its uncensored mind on topics of national and global interest - without the forum, without the "alliances" and the allies , without the disastrously inept rock-star/political-savior packaging meant to catapult him to Fuehrerhood....but in all other ways unchanged, with every last 'itz' intact - would you read him? Would you value him as a rara avis, a scathing gadfly, or at least find him truthful and entertaining?
Most of his detractors are now in a Linderesque cul-de-sac themselves, having taken such grandiloquent public postures of scorn and loathing for Linder that I doubt they can afford to answer that question honestly.
Re this remark...
[QUOTE]If you were more familiar with Raimondo's books and other non-journalistic writings I think you'd give him more credit. [/QUOTE]
That may be so, although I've read a little nonANTIWAR Justin (speech transcripts, TAC material, etc) and I find it hard to believe he is capable of 'nonjournalistic' writing since so much of his style is informed by his Winchellized-by-way-of-Fleet-Street version of crusading journalism, in which information is shouted, and shouted in such a way as to constantly remind you who it is who's doing the shouting (the 'this reporter has just exclusively learned...' school of journalism).
Whereas, Linder's style - while it does appear to borrow a little from Tyrell, and openly enshrines Mencken's spirit - is the kind that presumes you're both a complicitous co-conspirator and an aghast bystander at the same time, resulting in prose that obsessively jabs an index finger in your chest, even as he's putting the other arm around you. If I'd never heard of VNN or Linder in my life and discovered a pamphlet collecting his best spintros by purest accident, I'd be laughing and giddy and galvanized and calling my friends up at 2 in the morning to read passages aloud to them. Just because it's authentically deranged and obsessive doesn't preclude it from being great stuff.
2005-03-20 22:14 | User Profile
...would you read him? Would you value him as a rara avis, a scathing gadfly, or at least find him truthful and entertaining?
Daily, Spider. Especially if he brought back Little Herschel. :thumbsup:
2005-03-20 22:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I have a question: Did Mr.Raimondo ever speak out against the Bosnia War?
The war in which we were killing white Christian people![/QUOTE]
Raimondo was one of the more vocal critics in cyberspace of the US bombing campaign against Serbia. Your hero Shrub, on the other hand, was 100% in favor of the war. His only criticism of Clinton was that he didn't send US ground troops to defend the Balkans Muslims.