← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · TexasAnarch
Thread ID: 19388 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-08-02
2005-08-02 16:56 | User Profile
The enormity of the twistedness now emerges.
[url]http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bolton/bolton.php[/url]
"From the start of his political career, Bolton has been a Republican Party loyalist. As a private attorney before joining the Reagan administration in 1981, he worked with Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Paul Laxalt (R-NV).3 In the 1980s he participated in Republican Party efforts to beat back the voter registration campaigns organized by labor and black organizations.4 A veteran of Southern electoral campaigns, Bolton has long appealed to racist voters."
Guess that's why xm says we have to swallow hard (he he) and take it -- as this board seems inclined to do, despite:
[url]http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1114[/url]
"Feith is joined in reshaping a U.S. foreign Middle East policyââ¬âone that mirrors or complements the policies of the hardliners in Israelââ¬âby a web of neoconservative policy institutes, pressure groups and think tanks. These include the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), Center for Security Policy (CSP) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)ââ¬âall groups with which Feith has been or still is closely associated."
Bolton is working at State at the time, too.
It's all Cath-'o-Jews and the chimp crew. Who would have ever thought fine upstanding racists supported Bolton (Franklin, war on Iran, Syria, Jews in general).
2005-08-02 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Bolton has aggressively and stridently attacked multilateral institutions and international treaties.[/QUOTE]
At least this speaks well of him. And heck, at least he's not the former chief legal council for the ACLU.
2005-08-02 17:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]Bolton has aggressively and stridently attacked multilateral institutions and international treaties.[/QUOTE]
My concern is that tough anti-U.N. rhetoric and other otherwise laudable anti-multilateralism is these days adopted for the benefit of Israel, not the U.S.
2005-08-02 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]My concern is that tough anti-U.N. rhetoric and other otherwise laudable anti-multilateralism is these days adopted for the benefit of Israel, not the U.S.[/QUOTE]"Attacking" the UN verbally might only be lip service done by false opposition. The Jews love the UN because it is a tool to implement world government with. That said, it stands to reason they benefit by the illusion that the UN will stand against Zionists in the long run, which it won't.
2005-08-02 19:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]My concern is that tough anti-U.N. rhetoric and other otherwise laudable anti-multilateralism is these days adopted for the benefit of Israel, not the U.S.[/QUOTE]
That is likely the case. In the news conference announcing the appointment, I heard, live, Bush say that one of Bolton's accomplishments was "derailing a UN resolution equating Zionism with racism."
That right there is a not-so-subtle message Bolton isn't going to stray off the reservation, though none of the later sound bites saw fit to repeat that little gem.
Come to think of it, how does Zionism differ from racism?
2005-08-02 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]
Come to think of it, how does Zionism differ from racism?[/QUOTE]
Zionism is worse than racism. At least those who believe in their blood don't claim The Almighty gave them the deed to other's land.
The UN is where Israel would have to apply for its peace and security, if it hadn't got southern racists and other chimp chumps to front for them ... Who would have thought this board would go up front for the Zionists. Not so bad after all, eh.
call me Outa Here. The smell started when it became clear there was not going to be any real standing up for America against its betrayer, aka Re-pubes. (not that the Kerrykohns were better -- they killed the anti-war movement.)
There will have to be a reckoning, as Hitler's Germany did with the Jews. I don't intend to sit by and watch those I care for, who have really done it right, killed for a bunch of fcking ssholes who cry "Jew! Jew!" but are even lower.
2005-08-03 01:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Who would have thought this board would go up front for the Zionists. Not so bad after all, eh.Who would have thought this board would go up front for the Zionists. Not so bad after all, eh.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? [QUOTE]call me Outa Here.[/QUOTE] Never mind. 'Bye.
2005-08-03 02:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Zionism is worse than racism. At least those who believe in their blood don't claim The Almighty gave them the deed to other's land.
[/QUOTE]
What is racism anyway? Here's a word that people toss every which way but it always remains unclear what the definition is. Is it love of your own people (if you are white); or hatred of another person simply because of their race?
2005-08-03 14:27 | User Profile
Jeez, ask a rhetorical question and look what happens...
Yes, racism is one of those catch-all, but otherwise meaningless, words that serves to put people on the defensive and stop them from asking inconvenient questions.
2005-08-03 14:37 | User Profile
I once read that the term "racist" was coined by Lenin.
I have a dictionary that was published in 1933 ....The Oxford Universal Dictionary. The terms "racist" and "racism" are not in it.
Mind you this dictionary has over 2500 pages and is 3 1/2 inches thick.
I suppose there never was any reason to have these words in our language until someone decided to develop the premise that loyalty to one's own kind was immoral. The absence of these words seems to indicate that loyalty to one's own kind was taken for granted, instinctively perhaps before it was made "immoral".
2005-08-03 16:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What is racism anyway? Here's a word that people toss every which way but it always remains unclear what the definition is.[/QUOTE]
According to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: rac÷ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi- Function: noun 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
The first has, obviously, a basis in fact. Just read the bell-curve. The second is simply [B][I]presumed[/I][/B] to be true of anyone who rejects the notion that heaven on earth can only be achieved when some multi-cultural nirvana has been forced down every throat on the planet. That is the problem. Even the dictionary now reflects the cultural elites values.
Is it not fair to say that European or American cultures which have advanced to an incredible degree, are not "inherently superior" to say the Hmong culture, which still practices barbaric tribal war, and must be taught to use a toliet and the concept of running water when "invited" to this country?
I guess that makes me a racist.
2005-08-03 16:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]According to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: rac÷ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi- Function: noun 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[/QUOTE]There are too many definitions to racism. By that definition I'm not a racist. I think race is a secondary determinant of human traits....secondary to the individual. I believe race is the general determinant of human traits, not the primary one. After all, there are some negroes with high intellect and good character and PLENTY of Whites with low intellect and low character. But the fact remains, the average intellect of Whites is higher than Negroes and the average criminality of Negroes is higher than that of Whites.
2005-08-03 18:08 | User Profile
Travis,
The term was coined by Trotsky in one of his books, circa 1927. This is another reason not to use it.
2005-08-03 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Travis,
The term was coined by Trotsky in one of his books, circa 1927. This is another reason not to use it.[/QUOTE]Thanks, I knew it was one of those Russian Jews. He was a very clever man, having coined such a concept has advanced his people above others considerably at our expense.