← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 20220 | Posts: 71 | Started: 2005-09-15
2005-09-15 06:01 | User Profile
I felt some sort of need to post this, even though it may cause some hard feelings among some people here at the OD forum. [For new members: some people at OD dislike VNN because it tends to be anti-Christian].
Quoting the VNN website, [url] http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com[/url], from its main page today:
[B][QUOTE]"Women are not technically capable of thought. They can produce words, and this fools people, but that is not the same thing." [/QUOTE][/B] Some of the people in the paleoconservative movement dislike VNN. I understand that, and I also understand why they dislike VNN.
However, VNN often says things that other websites are afraid to say. That, in my opinion, makes VNN both important and rather unique.
2005-09-15 06:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Quoting the VNN website, [url] http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com[/url], from its main page today:"Women are not technically capable of thought. They can produce words, and this fools people, but that is not the same thing."
[/QUOTE]Ho-hum. Didn't Linder just write something like that you posted here? :whstl:
Anyway for the record
[QUOTE]When I kick up to the surface, I whack my head on a 16-ounce can of Busch floating there, crack it open, take a long pull, stare across the surface at the other cans floating. Full bottles of Pinot Grigio are scattered along the bottom. It's the only way to keep them cool. All leftovers from my birthday the night before. As are the sleeping bodies strewn about the patio in this old courtyard in the center of the French Quarter. On the steps up to the main cottage a Miami Herald reporter sleeps in his own vomit. He spent the night with us to do a story on our little commune of French Quarter rats, and he wound up like many another tourist in the Big Easy. There are fewer of them now. All the more liquor for the rest of us. Lots of people hate civilization, and not just niggers. * your sell phones your elf phones your self phones. You aren't important. A cell phone does not change that. And keep your voice down. You're not interesting when you're talking to me. Why would I want to hear you yawping at someone else? With all the ing horrible female government, life today is nice and cotton-comfy, like wrapped in a big warm used pink maxi pad. *** women, too. They don't belong anywhere near politics, and they think media is daycare. Ugh. Go in the other room and irritate the dishes. Here the world's oldest fourth grader, a despicable Israel-Firster, nevertheless makes my point: All six women jurors in the Erik Menendez trial voted to acquit him of the murder of his father (all six males voted guilty of murder). A virtually identical breakdown by sex took place in the Lyle Menendez trial for the murder of their mother. The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents. The dumb cunts couldn't see past the "nice" sweaters, you know it's true. Women are not technically capable of thought. They can produce words, and this fools people, but that is not the same thing. New Orleans needs not clothes but DDT, and whatever the DDT is for niggers. Boobegone, perhaps.
[/QUOTE]Personally I think Linder writes like a black a little bit himself. :afro:
2005-09-15 07:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Ho-hum. Didn't Linder just write something like that you posted here? :whstl:
Anyway for the record
Personally I think Linder writes like a black a little bit himself. :afro:[/QUOTE]
I think the point is that women have been given a status in Western culture which they don't deserve. They are now called "equal" to men, and anyone who says otherwise is automatically said to be wrong.
It's time for people in the West to stand up and correct the idea that women are "equal" to men. [The word "equal" means "the same"].
2005-09-15 07:07 | User Profile
Well, I see there could be some fun times ahead if someone gets the bright idea to post this on the vnn forum.
[QUOTE] * The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents. [/QUOTE]Those female jurors also thought the guys were cute from what I remember of that trial. LOL.
To say woman are incapable of thought is pretty ****ing retarded.
[QUOTE] It's time for people in the West to stand up and correct the idea that women are "equal" to men. [The word "equal" means "the same"]. [/QUOTE]It goes a little beyond that. Women are incapable of thought=women are stupid. The prevailing attitude preached by too many there. If it does come up though I am going to stay away this time. No point in it. If I disagree with any part of it I will be called a jew feminist or some crap like that. that gets old.
I hope the anti-female views don't make it into the Aryan alternative. White women will just love to learn about how inferior they are, and how they should not be able to vote,(and that they would want to is just an idea put into their heads by the evil jews.lol)etc. That would go over real good.:tongue: The feminist movement may get some new recruits, though.*
2005-09-15 09:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]I think the point is that women have been given a status in Western culture which they don't deserve. They are now called "equal" to men, and anyone who says otherwise is automatically said to be wrong.
It's time for people in the West to stand up and correct the idea that women are "equal" to men. [The word "equal" means "the same"].
----------------------[/QUOTE]Also the point is, for a genuine White Nationalist of all people, is that one's woman are one group one cannot afford to alienate. If Alex was serious about his concern for whites he would think rather than just rant.
Not that his rant in this case isn't perfectly true. :biggrin: But it won't get him out of Grandma's house.
2005-09-15 10:33 | User Profile
The philosopher David Stove (his article HERE) has a very enlightening article about women's intellect.
I suspect the main problem is that women tend to be far more influenced by their motherly feelings than men. My girlfriend, whose IQ is 144 and who has an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago, got all emotional and PMS on me when I pointed out racial differences in IQ, and how anyone with one eye open could have predicted the behavior in New Orleans. She just didn't want to believe it.
2005-09-15 10:34 | User Profile
Why don’t you go worship Linder in private?
2005-09-15 11:25 | User Profile
I think that Linder is right in identifying feminine thought patterns, and particularly argument style as one of the reasons why women playing a large role in politics is a bad idea. Like Jews, women have higher verbal IQ, and can win arguments through verbal dexterity even when they're wrong. Also, Jewish culture is matriarchal versus patriarchal White Gentile culture (Jewishness gets passed down the mother's side) and feminine modes of thinking tend to predominate.
Winning or losing an argument with a woman is always about who breaches social etiquette first, rather than a hard-headed appraisal of whose beliefs cohere most strongly with reality. Also, they set up little "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't" traps where the only way to escape is to immediately concede the argument and change the topic. Not all women (or Jews) fit this stereotype, but the generalisation still stands.
The result is that large sections of arguments and evidence contradicting the status quo is essentially walled-off from discussion because mentioning them makes you "arrogant", "unpatriotic", "heartless", "racists" etc etc.
They constantly attack people's motivations for making an argument rather than the argument itself. This means that realistic assessment of the negative outcomes of a policy is not permitted because whoever points them out is accused of "profiting from tragedy for their own political agenda". E.g. Iraq War dead, Hurricane Katrina aftermath etc etc.
Another other trick that chicks pull is making you an accessory after the fact to every bad deed that a politician you support has ever committed (even if you make it quite clear that you are only supporting them tactically, and on one particular issue). Personally I don't care a damn about whether politicians are hypocrits with regard to their private lives (except for the bad example this gives to children).
For example, if a politician had a drunk driving conviction, would you oppose him when he passed legislation mandating certain penalties for drunk driving? Surely your decision should be based on whether you think the legislation is good or bad for society, and that alone? Who gives a damn about whether the guy supporting it is a hypocrite for doing so? Same goes for politicians who never served in a war going to war. I don't agree with the Iraq War, but if I did, then Bush's service record would be immaterial to my support for it.
The personalisation of politics is due in large part to the feminization of political culture IMHO.
2005-09-15 11:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]The philosopher David Stove (his article HERE) has a very enlightening article about women's intellect.
I suspect the main problem is that women tend to be far more influenced by their motherly feelings than men. My girlfriend, whose IQ is 144 and who has an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago, got all emotional and PMS on me when I pointed out racial differences in IQ, and how anyone with one eye open could have predicted the behavior in New Orleans. She just didn't want to believe it.[/QUOTE]I think your comments are the most in line with what Kevin MacDonald said about woman, who is a real evolutionary psychologist, as opposed to just an anecdotal pundit.
WN's could actually learn a lot from MacDonald, and cite him often, but alot act like they've never real read him. Its a bit like a late medieval earth scientist who claims brilliance because he was the first one out with the round earth theory, but still sprends most of his time talking about how the moon is made of green cheese.
2005-09-15 13:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]The philosopher David Stove (his article HERE) has a very enlightening article about women's intellect.
I suspect the main problem is that women tend to be far more influenced by their motherly feelings than men. My girlfriend, whose IQ is 144 and who has an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago, got all emotional and PMS on me when I pointed out racial differences in IQ, and how anyone with one eye open could have predicted the behavior in New Orleans. She just didn't want to believe it.[/QUOTE]
Very simplistic. Now explain the reason why many men agree with her. The few arguments that I have gotten in over these facts about Katrina were with men who did everything but call me racist and tried to use socialogical explanations to excuse the blacks' rampage in New Orleans. And these men were conservatives, not liberals. They did not listen to me, either.
2005-09-15 13:40 | User Profile
SK,
I would bet those men you argued with are the typical "talk radio" listeners/callers. I've noted the same fuzzy thinking from those I've heard on the radio.
2005-09-15 14:01 | User Profile
On the whole, women are certainly not less intelligent than men. The two genders are roughly equivalent in average IQ. Males are more likely to be either extremely intelligent or mentally retarded, however. And males and females tend to differ in their patterns of abilities.
I do think there's some truth to the notion that women are more emotional than men; in other words, although women are essentially just as capable of applying thought to problems, they are more likely to choose (either consciously or subconsciously) to base their decisions on emotion instead. Some would call this a stereotype, but at least my own personal observations and experiences tend to back it up.
At any rate, women are by no means the same as men. Radical feminists have long attempted to push that line, and fortunately few people seem to buy it. It's perfectly appropriate for women and men to have different roles in society, though I definitely don't believe those should be state-enforced.
As far as VNN's women-bashing, that's extremely counterproductive. Period.
2005-09-15 17:37 | User Profile
Are women and men equal in that they are the SAME, no. Women and Men are different, thank God.
But saying that women are incapable of thought? Perhaps the author is upset that his woman didn't agree with him on something, therefore all women are incapable of thought.
In order for our people to progress men treating women with respect will be the first and primary step. You're not getting anywhere with a bunch of angry women.
2005-09-15 19:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Very simplistic. Now explain the reason why many men agree with her. The few arguments that I have gotten in over these facts about Katrina were with men who did everything but call me racist and tried to use socialogical explanations to excuse the blacks' rampage in New Orleans. And these men were conservatives, not liberals. They did not listen to me, either.[/QUOTE]
Here's how MacDonald describes feminine social and political differences [QUOTE]Another critical component of the evolutionary basis of individualism is the elaboration of the human affectional system as an individualistic pair-bonding system, the system that seemed so strange that it was theorized to be a thin veneer overlaying a deep psychopathology to a generation of Jewish intellectuals emerging from the ghetto (Cuddihy 1974, 71). This system is individualistic in the sense that it is based not on external, group-based social controls or familial dictate but, rather, on the intrinsically motivated role of romantic love in cementing reproductive relationships (see pp. 136--139). The issue is important because Western cultures are typically characterized as relatively individualistic compared to other societies (Triandis 1995), and there is reason to suppose that the affectional system is conceptually linked to individualism; that is, it is a system that tends toward nuclear rather than extended family organization. Triandis (1990) finds that individualistic societies emphasize romantic love to a greater extent than do collectivist societies, and Western cultures have indeed emphasized romantic love more than other cultures (see PTSDA, 236-245; MacDonald 1995b,c; Money 1980). This system is highly elaborated in Western cultures in both men and women, and it is psychometrically linked with empathy, altruism, and nurturance. Individuals who are very high on this system--predominantly females--are pathologically prone to altruistic, nurturant and dependent behavior (see MacDonald 1995a). [B]On an evolutionary account, the relatively greater elaboration of this system in females is to be expected, given the greater female role in nurturance and as a discriminating mechanism in relationships of pair bonding. Such a perspective also accounts for the much-commented-on gender gap in political behavior in which females are more prone to voting for political candidates favoring liberal positions on social issues. Women more than men also endorse political stances that equalize rather than accentuate differences between individuals and groups (Pratto, Stallworth & Sidanius 1997).[/B]
In ancestral environments this system was highly adaptive, resulting in a tendency toward pair bonding and high- investment parenting, as well as intrinsically motivated relationships of close friendship and trust. This system continues to be adaptive in the modern world in its role in underlying high-investment parenting, [B]but it is easy to see that the relative hypertrophy of this system may result in maladaptive behavior if a system designed for empathy, altruism, and nurturance of family members and others in a closely related group becomes directed to the world outside the family.[/B]
The implication is that Western societies are subject to invasion by non-Western cultures able to manipulate Western tendencies toward reciprocity, egalitarianism, and close affectional relationships in a manner that results in maladaptive behavior for the European-derived peoples who remain at the core of all Western societies.
[I]Last Chapter - Culture of Critique[/I][/QUOTE]
I think it is easy to see how in some women this type of vulnerability certainly holds true. I am thinking for instance of the type of women who would be listening to Hillary discuss "It Takes A Family" on Oprah and sucking it all in. But of course these aren't politically involved or sophisticated women.
2005-09-15 19:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]...........But saying that women are incapable of thought?
Perhaps the author is upset that his woman didn't agree with him on something, therefore all women are incapable of thought.
In order for our people to progress men treating women with respect will be the first and primary step. You're not getting anywhere with a bunch of angry women.[/QUOTE]Linder I and a lot of others think has some personal issues with woman, as do a lot of WN's it seems actually. With Linder, who wears his puerilness on his sleeve, it comes out in bold letters like every one of his other neuroses. I think that's one of the big reasons they're practical political usefulness is often so low. He does have some good points, but with such blatant misygony his credibility is very low.
2005-09-15 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Linder I and a lot of others think has some personal issues with woman, as do a lot of WN's it seems actually. With Linder, who wears his puerilness on his sleeve, it comes out in bold letters like every one of his other neuroses. I think that's one of the big reasons they're practical political usefulness is often so low. He does have some good points, but with such blatant misygony his credibility is very low.[/QUOTE]
His credibility is very low....? With whom? With the jewmedia...oh, sorry that would be wearing puerilness on my sleeve.... With the mainstream media for whom VDare, and I assume this site, are considered fronts for 'white supremacists'? And political usefulness....? In our 'democracy' where every candidate from every side is a millionaire, goes to Yale and is a member of the Skull and Crossbones Society? That's pretty funny. I guess because Linder writes 'jew' and 'ni**er' he's never going to make it to the senate, eh? On the contrary, I'm sure that many here, who use the polite terms, will in no time be representing us in congress.
What Alice in Wonderland logic. Linder is angry and honest. In a 'culture' of absolute garbage, of spin, double talk, euphemisms and outright lies, there is quite a lot of power and authority in simply [B]telling the truth[/B].
Women - many of them, and most of their special interest organizations - have been turned into weapons aimed at white men - and everybody with a brain knows it. Linder is pissed and shows it merely because he is being murdered and his race is being exterminated? How lacking in class! Can't he at least say it in double talk, code and ten-dollar words?
There is a very nice piece - in exquisite style, totally balanced and of an Olympian calm, on VNN right now, posted by that Mr. Puerility himself. It's by a 'good' jew - James Howard Kunstler. Called End of the Binge it details all the FACTS that have lead to our society being poised right on the edge of the abyss, about to go over and nothing whatsoever being able to prevent it.
Good style and consideration are fine qualities, but not when they obscure the truth. That kind of polite verbiage is, or soon will be, oh-so passé. Right now, Linder and his raw honesty and natural fury speak for many. Soon he will be speaking for quite a few more still.
End of the Binge is at VNNForum: [URL=http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=23304]http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=23304[/URL]
See you on the links...I'll be the one in the three piece suit.
2005-09-15 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Linder is pissed and shows it merely because he is being murdered and his race is being exterminated[/QUOTE]And how many white men support and make and enforce countless policies aimed at the same things of which you refer? He is pissed that his race is being exterminated, so what better way to deal with that than to bash (white)women. Lets see, aren't white women needed for such "minor" things as creating more white children? Wouldn't it maybe be somewhat more productive to stick to talking about the "evils" of feminism and how feminist doctrine has given women the idea that they don't need a man or children, for example, rather than pointless angry little tirades about how women are stupid,etc? If he is so pissed that he just bitches without thinking about the possible negative and very devisive consequences of what he is saying, maybe he needs to learn to better keep his emotions in check(which is kind of feminine, isn't it?:boxing: )
It continues to be amazing to me that the same people who bitch about feminism make all the comments that help give feminism so much power over women. Andrea Dworkin would be proud of her useful recruits.lol
2005-09-15 21:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gott]Good style and consideration are fine qualities, but not when they obscure the truth. That kind of polite verbiage is, or soon will be, oh-so passé. Right now, Linder and his raw honesty and natural fury speak for many. Soon he will be speaking for quite a few more still. [/QUOTE] Isn't that exactly what the rappers say? :afro: :afro:
Maybe Resistance Records should start its own rap label. :lol:
2005-09-15 22:27 | User Profile
I've had fun at VNN before, but it's a pretty kooky site for the most part.
It's sort of like a WN National Enquirer of internet forums.
2005-09-15 22:31 | User Profile
I have to disagree here with MacDonald and Wallace. Except in religious women I just can't see this "motherly" instinct. If women in general were naturally so "nurturing" then why is abortion such big business? Why did feminism rise in the first place? Why do so many women compared to men kill their children, born and unborn? If given the choice why do women, at least the less religious ones, choose NOT to have big bountiful families?
If women are so kind and caring, why did the word "bitch" need to be invented? :biggrin:
I think the nurturing "instinct" has to be activated by religion or some other catalytic pressure. Otherwise women revert to their animal state, which is as cruel and uncaring as the worst men's. If not more so.
You might could call this the original conservative view, in the pessimistic (I call it realistic) Hobbesian sense.
Among whites at least, the most religious women are having almost all the children. This really is further evidence as to the necessity of religion in my opinion.
2005-09-15 22:47 | User Profile
Hamilton, do words "Raina" or "Brandon Orr" ring a bell on you? You are sounding a bit like "they".
Petr
2005-09-15 22:55 | User Profile
No, Petr, but I was recently accused by madrussian of coming across "zhid"-like. Why? Because I mentioned Hitler's pro-Muslim views. I pointed out that the truth is the truth even if a zhid says it.
Is there anything specific that you disagree with? You seem knowledgable enough, surely you know that among whites, religious women are having most of the children.
2005-09-15 23:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I think your comments are the most in line with what Kevin MacDonald said about woman, who is a real evolutionary psychologist, as opposed to just an anecdotal pundit.[/QUOTE]
My experience has been that most women (but not all) no matter how intelligent they are, tend to be more influenced by their feelings, and "group-oriented." I suspect this is one of the reasons why they have traditionally been denied the vote: it's the basis of leftism, and will destroy societies.
Now to move from sexual differences to racial ones: my experience with most blacks is that they are far less intelligent than whites, much more impulsive, and more prone to "emotionality." As I wrote, I wasn't surprised in the slightest by what happened in New Orleans.
These days, of course, is say such things is to be labeled "sexist" and "racist." Unfortunately, we ignore these truths to the detriment of individuals and societies.
2005-09-15 23:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]My experience has been that most women (but not all) no matter how intelligent they are, tend to be more influenced by their feelings, and "group-oriented."[/QUOTE] If this is true, it can be used to our advantage. Race and Nation are group identities, after all.
A properly enculturated woman can be a pillar of her nation. The problem is when culture goes down the tubes, and the animal rules.
2005-09-15 23:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]If this is true, it can be used to our advantage. Race and Nation are group identities, after all. A properly enculturated woman can be a pillar of her nation. The problem is when culture goes down the tubes, and the animal rules.[/QUOTE]
I mean "group-oriented" in the liberal sense that all of us are supposed to be children, to be taken care of by the nanny state. I consider that to be very bad.
We have to find some way to be individuals within a group. That's the rub.
2005-09-15 23:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]I mean "group-oriented" in the liberal sense that all of us are supposed to be children, to be taken care of by the nanny state. I consider that to be very bad. Yeah, but not bad if you replace "nanny state" with "Mother Church." Which goes back to culture. We have a nanny state only because our cultural institutions have sufficiently eroded.
2005-09-15 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Hamilton, do words "Raina" or "Brandon Orr" ring a bell on you? You are sounding a bit like "they".
Petr[/QUOTE]LOL. That is the first thing I thought of as well. Though some of the points are correct, I believe. Raina/Orr/whoever was a little over the top with this, but was not completely wrong, either.
Just on abortion, something could be said for the fact that the woman, herself is not directly taking part in the violent(life ending may be more correct) part of the act, but she does make a decision most of the time(as with the case of most abortions) to selfishly choose her own comforts,etc over the life of her unborn child. Certainly not much of a motherly instinct present there. The demand for abortion would not be, as it is, if women were always so "nurturing" The Jews, feminists, whoever one may want to blame did not "create" this,(the all too simple answer) but rather advanced and played upon this that was already present. Though, at least with the women I know who have had abortions, they do feel some guilt after the fact when it is too late.
2005-09-15 23:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]Yeah, but not bad if you replace "nanny state" with "Mother Church." Which goes back to culture. We have a nanny state only because our cultural institutions have sufficiently eroded.[/QUOTE]
Oh so true. The bigger the government gets, the more it destroys society. I consider the State to be just like the Blob in the movie of the same name: it just keeps growing and sucking up everything in its path.
2005-09-15 23:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]LOL. That is the first thing I thought of as well. Those some of the points are correct, I believe. Raina/Orr/whoever was a little over the top with this, but was not completely wrong, either. I'm not Raina/Orr/whoever. But I'm hardly surprised if I'm not the first person to say what should be obvious. I'm sure even some dirty zhids have said as much, uh-oh! :tongue:
Just on abortion, something could be said for the fact that the woman, herself is not directly taking part in the violent(life ending may be more correct) part of the act, but she does make a decision most of the time(as with the case of most abortions) to selfishly choose her own comforts,etc over the life of her unborn child. Certainly not much of a motherly instinct present there. Yes. Though in child murder (infanticide, etc.) the woman is directly and violently taking part in the act. Women do that more often than men do, by far. Though I will again note that devoutly religious women as a rule do not.
2005-09-15 23:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Linder I and a lot of others think has some personal issues with woman, as do a lot of WN's it seems actually. With Linder, who wears his puerilness on his sleeve, it comes out in bold letters like every one of his other neuroses. I think that's one of the big reasons they're practical political usefulness is often so low. He does have some good points, but with such blatant misygony his credibility is very low.[/QUOTE]I actually just shake my head when I read a lot of Alex Linder's diatribes. He's smart, and he's a genuinely funny guy...a guy who would have a lot of potential if he wasn't so maladjusted and misanthropic.
Linder is a guy who adopted a "**** the world" attitude back when he was in the 12th Grade (like a lot of us did)...except Linder never grew up and let it go.
2005-09-15 23:33 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Blue][I][B] - "I'm not Raina/Orr/whoever. But I'm hardly surprised if I'm not the first person to say what should be obvious. I'm sure even some dirty zhids have said as much, uh-oh!" [/B][/I][/COLOR][/FONT]
Hamilton, it is very "Rainaesque" to respond to suspicions aimed at you in this sort of smirking manner, instead of trying to seriously refute them.
We have learned to know his (yours?) style pretty well.
Petr
2005-09-15 23:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]Oh so true. The bigger the government gets, the more it destroys society. I consider the State to be just like the Blob in the movie of the same name: it just keeps growing and sucking up everything in its path.[/QUOTE] The Leviathan loves a vacuum. In the absence of strong families, a strong Church, etc., you have a growing vacuum filled by a growing State.
2005-09-15 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Hamilton, it is very "Rainaesque" to respond to suspicions aimed at you in this sort of smirking manner, instead of trying to seriously refute them. How would I "seriously refute" such a charge?
We have learned to know his (yours?) style pretty well. In your case, apparently not well enough. I made 40-something posts before you guessed that I was Raina/Orr/whoever. And you guess wrongly. But I don't see the point in arguing with you. How would I convince you otherwise, on a message board? Even trying is a waste of time.
2005-09-15 23:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Thomas777]I actually just shake my head when I read a lot of Alex Linder's diatribes. He's smart, and he's a genuinely funny guy...a guy who would have a lot of potential if he wasn't so maladjusted and misanthropic.[/QUOTE] With his current approach, I wonder what he really hopes to accomplish? It seems designed to run off new people, male and female, rather than grow an actual movement.
2005-09-16 00:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]With his current approach, I wonder what he really hopes to accomplish? It seems designed to run off new people, male and female, rather than grow an actual movement.[/QUOTE] Linder has an eclectic collection of ladies who post on his VNN Froum.
Just remember you can't argue with a lady and win!
Alex, was raised on some off brand form of Christianity, and he really doesn't know or understand the basics Protestant Reformation or the New Testament. Of course I can assure you that most Protestants' today don't get it either.
I think Alex will muddle through. This maybe the German in me talking, but, when Alex is sensible and level headed he can't be beat. Plus, it has to be difficult, trying to put together an independent, non-jew owned or controlled news network.
The young man is more than worthy of sending a $10 or a $20 dollar bill to now and then; if you read his stuff and you like it and use it you should do it!
For you catholics---Rome wasn't built in a day. :biggrin:
2005-09-16 00:17 | User Profile
I understand that Linder's family were members of Mary Baker Eddy's neo-Gnostic [B]Christian Science[/B] -cult, so Alex has hardly had contact with real Christian upbringing.
Petr
2005-09-16 00:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I understand that Linder's family were members of Mary Baker Eddy's neo-Gnostic Christian Science -cult, so Alex has hardly had contact with real Christian upbringing.
Petr[/QUOTE] Yeah, I read that too.
Linder's family, from Alex's stories about his ancestor Usher (?) Linder sound to be pre-1848 Germans, or, as they were more commonly called then: Dutchman. I wonder what Protestant sect the Linder's belonged to before they got involved in Christian Science?
The Pennsylvania Dutch, being in this country almost as long, and in numbers, as the English...
2005-09-16 04:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]I mean "group-oriented" in the liberal sense that all of us are supposed to be children, to be taken care of by the nanny state. I consider that to be very bad.
We have to find some way to be individuals within a group. That's the rub.[/QUOTE] Group oriented, like hunter gatherers? Or socialists?
Men by the way, partake in "group-oriented" activities: team sports, hunting, rioting, drinking.... Women haven't had the right to vote or direct society except just in the past couple of centuries, what's the excuse for the "group oriented" state prior to this?
Men and Women think and do things differently, but to the same end result.
2005-09-16 04:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]Group oriented, like hunter gatherers? Or socialists?
Men by the way, partake in "group-oriented" activities: team sports, hunting, rioting, drinking.... Women haven't had the right to vote or direct society except just in the past couple of centuries, what's the excuse for the "group oriented" state prior to this?
Men and Women think and do things differently, but to the same end result.[/QUOTE] I think that a lot of men identify a certain type of oppressive statism with initiatives that are supported by women. The political culture in this country likes to lump all of female humanity into an insular "victim class" of people who have been "wronged" by Traditional notions of limited government.
The running narrative of the American Left involves the mythology that self-governance leads to all sorts of horrible things like private ownership of firearms, racial "discrimination", the "oppression" of women, etc. These ideologues propose that an all powerful Federal state is needed to keep "masculine" political tendencies in line and keep everybody "safe".
I don't personally believe that most well-informed women think this way, but a lot of people internalize the aforementioned sort of propagada and begin to believe it.
I must take exception to your assertion that men who are "statist" in their ideology find themselves in agreement with "feminist"-oriented statists like Hillary Clinton.
To me, and example of a typically "masculine" statist movement would be the regime of Francisco Franco.
2005-09-16 05:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]I understand that Linder's family were members of Mary Baker Eddy's neo-Gnostic Christian Science -cult, so Alex has hardly had contact with real Christian upbringing.
Petr[/QUOTE] I find Linder's hostility to Christianity offensive also, but I don't think that is his main problem. The guy thinks that National Socialism is some sort of halyconic, ideal form of government...and I don't think that thinking people really take that sort of ideology seriously.
National Socialism is a rotten form of government...not because its "anti-semitic", but because its nothing but Bolshevik nonsense dressed up in a racialist sensibility...but I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.
2005-09-16 05:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]With his current approach, I wonder what he really hopes to accomplish? It seems designed to run off new people, male and female, rather than grow an actual movement.[/QUOTE]
VNN has grown significantly in the past couple of years.
2005-09-16 05:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Thomas777]I find Linder's hostility to Christianity offensive also, but I don't think that is his main problem. The guy thinks that National Socialism is some sort of halyconic, ideal form of government...and I don't think that thinking people really take that sort of ideology seriously.
National Socialism is a rotten form of government...not because its "anti-semitic", but because its nothing but Bolshevik nonsense dressed up in a racialist sensibility...but I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.[/QUOTE]
Linder is not a National Socialist [I]per se.[/I] In fact, many people who frequent the VNN website aren't. Granted, that doesn't mean that they don't have sympathy for Hitler's Germany. Many of them do, to varying degrees. [I myself have been called a Nazi, which doesn't bother me, but I am not a Nazi[I] per se.[/I] To me, a Nazi is someone who follows National Socialist ideas pretty strictly].
2005-09-16 09:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]Group oriented, like hunter gatherers? Or socialists? [/QUOTE]
Group oriented in the sense of a family in which all are children who should be treated equally.
Roughly speaking, left is "mother" and right is "father." That's why we have the leftist nanny state, in which all the citizens are considered children too stupid to run their own lives, so Mom, in the form of the State, has to take care of them. And everyone has to be "equal" (i.e. the same), hence the belief of leftists that "racism" and "sexism" and whatever-else-ism can be eradicated from the human race.
2005-09-16 13:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Linder is not a National Socialist per se. In fact, many people who frequent the VNN website aren't. Granted, that doesn't mean that they don't have sympathy for Hitler's Germany. Many of them do, to varying degrees. [I myself have been called a Nazi, which doesn't bother me, but I am not a Nazi per se. To me, a Nazi is someone who follows National Socialist ideas pretty strictly].
---------------------[/QUOTE]There is a real lack of knowledge of modern German political history.
Most people don't realize that Hitler wasn't "the only game in town". Take for example Hitler's main political rivals, General Kurt von Schleicher the German Army politician, and Otto Welles of the SPD.
Von Schleicher had actually put down jew bolshevik revolts, and had murdered jews like Liebnecht & Luxemberg. Hitler never murdered any jews, nor had he put down any jew bolshevik revolts.
Otto Welles liked to remind the Nazis, that he had called for every policy they called for, but, he had called for those policies before they did---years before the Nazis.
If you consider Hitler's rivals for power; you get a little more balanced view of German politics. :excl:
2005-09-16 15:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]VNN has grown significantly in the past couple of years.
--------------------[/QUOTE]I think he referred to achievements in reality, not just cyber reality.
2005-09-16 17:03 | User Profile
...as a news network VNN has made real obvious progress...even if Alex wanders and panders to anti-religious and the would be Germanic pagan fringe once and awhile.
The really funny thing, is that these would be Germanic pagans don't realize, that what they take as gospel was made up by Wagner and other German Romantics in the 19th century...:biggrin: The ancient Germans were nature worshippers, and trees were their gods...:oh:
2005-09-17 04:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]Group oriented in the sense of a family in which all are children who should be treated equally.
Roughly speaking, left is "mother" and right is "father." That's why we have the leftist nanny state, in which all the citizens are considered children too stupid to run their own lives, so Mom, in the form of the State, has to take care of them. And everyone has to be "equal" (i.e. the same), hence the belief of leftists that "racism" and "sexism" and whatever-else-ism can be eradicated from the human race.[/QUOTE] While I don't disagree with your analogy of a cradle to grave socialists "Nanny" state, I do take exception to your insuation that women naturally think this way. True, women can be "nurturers", but that does not make us socialists.
2005-09-17 20:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Thomas777]I find Linder's hostility to Christianity offensive also, but I don't think that is his main problem. The guy thinks that National Socialism is some sort of halyconic, ideal form of government...and I don't think that thinking people really take that sort of ideology seriously.
National Socialism is a rotten form of government...not because its "anti-semitic", but because its nothing but Bolshevik nonsense dressed up in a racialist sensibility...but I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.[/QUOTE] Until you come up with a system besides Capitalist Free Enterprise which is allowing Jews to rot away our entire society, National Socialism is the only alternative we have :hitler: . I'd love to know what kind of ideal society you have in mind and how you plan to remove Jewish Communism without propping up a White-ruled dictatorship in it's place??????
This is what always surprises me about the Anti Third Reich people, they never have an alternative strategy other than rejecting Nazis.
2005-09-17 20:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]There is a real lack of knowledge of modern German political history.
Most people don't realize that Hitler wasn't "the only game in town". Take for example Hitler's main political rivals, General Kurt von Schleicher the German Army politician, and Otto Welles of the SPD.
Von Schleicher had actually put down jew bolshevik revolts, and had murdered jews like Liebnecht & Luxemberg. Hitler never murdered any jews, nor had he put down any jew bolshevik revolts.
Otto Welles liked to remind the Nazis, that he had called for every policy they called for, but, he had called for those policies before they did---years before the Nazis.
If you consider Hitler's rivals for power; you get a little more balanced view of German politics. :excl:[/QUOTE] Oh please, Kurt von Schleicher was going to remove the press from Jewish hands? The film industry? You have to be kidding....:thumbd:
2005-09-17 20:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Until you come up with a system besides Capitalist Free Enterprise which is allowing Jews to rot away our entire society, National Socialism is the only alternative we have: Hitler.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you're from, but the United States does not have "Capitalist Free Enterprise." We have free enterprise, socialism and mercantilism. And the free market benefits everyone, and certainly does not allow Jews to rot away the entire society.
What are you, some kind of plant here, to make people look bad?
2005-09-17 20:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]On the whole, women are certainly not less intelligent than men. The two genders are roughly equivalent in average IQ. Males are more likely to be either extremely intelligent or mentally retarded, however. And males and females tend to differ in their patterns of abilities.
I do think there's some truth to the notion that women are more emotional than men; in other words, although women are essentially just as capable of applying thought to problems, they are more likely to choose (either consciously or subconsciously) to base their decisions on emotion instead. Some would call this a stereotype, but at least my own personal observations and experiences tend to back it up.
At any rate, women are by no means the same as men. Radical feminists have long attempted to push that line, and fortunately few people seem to buy it. It's perfectly appropriate for women and men to have different roles in society, though I definitely don't believe those should be state-enforced.
As far as VNN's women-bashing, that's extremely counterproductive. Period.[/QUOTE] If there wasn't a problem with today's White women, we wouldn't need to criticize them, but unfortunately there is. In public [size=4]why do I see so many Black male/ White female couples and so few White men with Black women?[/size] I'm sorry but it seems that some of you still have your heads in the sand...
[size=3]There is something shockingly primitive about female mate selection[/size] which has only been made far worse by the Jewish push of "Diversity" in mass media. Just take a good look around you and notice that women often choose the male who is most [size=3]**"cocky"**[/size] and [size=3]**"loud"**[/size] rather than the intelligent men. This female preference for **[size=3]"public display[/size]"** and [size=3]**"showboating"**[/size] plays right into the hands of them liking Black men over White men. I see homeless Black guys strutting like millionaire rap stars, the trait of in-your-face **[size=3]"attitude"[/size]** seems to come naturally to almost all Black men [u]while probably less than 30% of White men truly display an excess of those behaviors[/u].
Look at the youth culture promoted by MTV, acting "ghetto" is perceived as being an alpha male winnner, as a "Player" with the ladies. [u]And honestly, why would White women choose a White guy acting Black if they could just cut right to the root of things and date a REAL BLACK MAN??? :furious: [/u]
And before I read the typical responses of "Oh it is only fat White women who date Black men."...total nonsense...in the past 5 years or so I've started seeing quite beautiful White women with great bodies in the company of Black boyfriends...The other common response to this problem usually comes from White women who say, "But I see plenty of White men with Asian women."...more excuses...the White guys with Asian women are typically misfit nerds who didn't act "flashy" or "macho" enough to get White women and thus turned to Asian women because they had no other options**...In contrast, White women CHOOSE Black men simply because they want BLACK MEN."....no other reasons...these White women have plenty of decent White men pursuing them but they make a decision that Black is better!!! **
2005-09-17 20:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]I don't know where you're from, but the United States does not have "Capitalist Free Enterprise." We have free enterprise, socialism and mercantilism. And the free market benefits everyone, and certainly does not allow Jews to rot away the entire society.
What are you, some kind of plant here, to make people look bad?[/QUOTE] I see, so the Jews took over Hollywood because of Socialism? Or because they had millions of dollars and there were thus no built-in controls in our system to prevent that from occurring? Also, the Jewish domination of Wall Street isn't because of Capitalism?
2005-09-17 20:50 | User Profile
[COLOR=Indigo][FONT=Arial][I][B][SIZE=3] - "why do I see so many Black male/ White female couples and so few White men with Black women?"[/SIZE][/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Otto, this could be thrown right back at White men's faces: [B]because White men are so dickless that they are no longer able to protect their women from Blacks or push away the competition[/B]. Women will not respect weak men.
Petty, hypocritical misogyny isn't going to do us any good, and it makes one look like resentful loser to boot.
Petr
2005-09-17 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Why donââ¬â¢t you go worship Linder in private?[/QUOTE] Why don't you go worship President Bush in private or maybe you'd have more fun on a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh forum? :wacko:
2005-09-17 21:00 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][I][B] - "Also, the Jewish domination of Wall Street isn't because of Capitalism?"[/B][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
Think about this: if there had been no atmosphere, Jews wouldn't have been able to survive in America. Ergo, we should abolish atmosphere.
[I]sarcasm[/I]
Petr
2005-09-17 21:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]The philosopher David Stove (his article [url="http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/women.html"]HERE[/url]) has a very enlightening article about women's intellect.
I suspect the main problem is that women tend to be far more influenced by their motherly feelings than men. My girlfriend, whose IQ is 144 and who has an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago, got all emotional and PMS on me when I pointed out racial differences in IQ, and how anyone with one eye open could have predicted the behavior in New Orleans. She just didn't want to believe it.[/QUOTE] Women respect authority figures much more than men do. I noticed in college how women looked upon the professors as "geniuses" while there were many men who could barely contain themselves because they were so opposed to much of what the professor was trying to brainwash them into accepting. Women tend to view intellectual issues in cut and dry Who is saying it? What are their credentials? Men focus on Does the idea make sense? **Does it sound correct based upon my own observations?? **
An authority figure who is respected by a lot of people can sell women on virtually ANYTHING and it makes no difference whether it opposes her own real life experiences or not..
2005-09-17 21:09 | User Profile
White women with black men gives new meaning to the word disgusting. But why is it that I see so many white men with Asian girl fetishes? There are even some men on the very forum of which this thread is about that have talked, some proudly, about their Asian girly "conquests."
The resident angry drunk's(steveB) "Japanese adventure" tale was especially tasteless.
And not to be forgotten, "the world's first wigger", Glenn Miller
2005-09-17 21:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Women respect authority figures much more than men do. I noticed in college how women looked upon the professors as "geniuses" while there were many men who could barely contain themselves because they were so opposed to much of what the professor was trying to brainwash them into accepting. Women tend to view intellectual issues in cut and dry Who is saying it? What are their credentials? Men focus on Does the idea make sense? **Does it sound correct based upon my own observations?? **
An authority figure who is respected by a lot of people can sell women on virtually ANYTHING and it makes no difference whether it opposes her own real life experiences or not..[/QUOTE]
Otto, you are not too off here. Women are attracted topowerful men as men are attracted to beautiful women. Naturally they want a powerful mate to provide for them and to protect their children. If some of these figures are black, so be it. That explains most of the attractive women you see with black men.
I think the last statement you made is particularly true of the women's increasingly liberal vote in the last two decades. Most of this liberal vote is from unmarried women who look to government as a parential figure and a husband to support them. Married white women tend to vote conservative.
2005-09-17 21:44 | User Profile
I think the largest single group of interracial parings in the US is white men with asian women.
Sometimes I've wondered how many of those couples are made up of soldiers who bring back wives or girlfriends from the far east.
Anyhow, I'm eager for those Neo-Swiftians in the VNN crowd to unleash their clever skewerings of the white-yellow "crisis".
2005-09-17 22:24 | User Profile
Speaking only for myself, thank God for women. I [I]like[/I] that they're different from us: that they're more emotional, more nurturing, even ditzier at times. I dislike feminism because it's one arm of a relentless Jew/Marxist agenda; but that doesn't mean that I long for a world of sour-faced peasant women living under the iron heel of their husbands, eating among themselves at a seperate table after serving the men (which I saw, many times, with my own eyes, both here and in the Old Country).
There was a [I]reason [/I] our grandparents, great-grandparents, etc came here to America in the first place....and usually, it was to get the hell [B]out [/B] of those gray, regimented, provincial towns and villages in the first place, and try for something better.
This all seems to be part of a definite, and much-larger pendulum-swing that's taken place in the past 25 years or so....our forebears wanted out of the village and looked forward [I]to[/I], invested all their hopes [I]in[/I], the future. Now we [I]dread[/I] tomorrow almost without exception, and hope to somehow go back in time to those villages. I don't think it's gonna pan out that way.
2005-09-17 22:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Why don't you go worship President Bush in private or maybe you'd have more fun on a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh forum? :wacko:[/QUOTE]
Dry up, drip. :bash:
2005-09-17 22:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Dry up, drip. :bash:[/QUOTE]The truth hurts? You were already banned from Stormfront for your Pro-Bush nonsense. It looks like old Dubya was kissing the Jewish backside again recently: :caiphas:
[url="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050915/pl_usnw/remarks_by_the_president_at_the_national_dinner_celebrating350_years_of_jewish_life_in_america323_xml"]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050915/pl_usnw/remarks_by_the_president_at_the_national_dinner_celebrating350_years_of_jewish_life_in_america323_xml[/url]
Remarks by the President at the National Dinner Celebrating 350 Years of Jewish Life in America Wed Sep 14, 8:14 PM
Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2580
WASHINGTON, , Sept. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a transcript of remarks by President Bush at the National Dinner Celebrating 350 years of Jewish life in America:
National Building Museum, Washington, D.C.
6:55 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for the invitation to be here. My only regret is Laura is not with me -- I left her behind to do some diplomacy in New York City. (Laughter.)
Bob, I want to thank you for your kind introduction. I'm honored to accept this medal commemorating three and a half centuries of Jewish life in America. I consider it a high honor to have been invited to celebrate with you.
Back in 1790, the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, wrote to congratulate George Washington on his election as the country's first President. Some say he was the first George W. (Laughter.) In his reply, President Washington thanked the congregation and pledged to defend vigorously the principle of religious liberty for all. (Applause.) Here's what he said. He said, the United States "gives bigotry no sanction; to persecution, no assistance." And he expressed his hope that the "stock of Abraham" would thrive in America.
In the centuries that followed, the stock of Abraham has thrived here like nowhere else. We're better and stronger -- (applause) -- and we're a better and stronger and freer nation because so many Jews from countries all over the world have chosen to become American citizens. (Applause.)
I want to thank Rabbi Gary Zola, who is the Chairman of the Commission for Commemorating 350 Years of American Jewish History. I want to thank Ken Bialkin, who is the Chairman of the Board of the American Jewish Historical Society. I want to thank members of Congress who are here. I want to thank members of the Diplomatic Corps, especially the Ambassador from Israel, Danny Ayalon. (Applause.)
I want to thank two members of my Cabinet who've joined us -- Secretary Alphonso Jackson, of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, and his wife Marcia -- (applause) -- and Josh Bolten, who is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (Applause.)
I appreciate the Archivist of the United States who has joined us today, Allen Weinstein; Dr. Jim Billington, who is the Librarian of Congress. I can't help but notice and welcome Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City. (Applause.) I want to thank my friend, Fred Zeidman, from Houston, Texas, who's the Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. (Applause.) I want to pay my respects to Lynn Schusterman, who's the President of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. (Applause.) And Sid Lapidus, who's the President of the American Jewish Historical Society. (Applause.)
This may sound a little odd for a Methodist from Texas saying this, but I just came from shool. (Applause.) I was just given the grand tour of the great American landmark, the 6th and I Historic Synagogue. I want to thank Shelton Zuckerman and Abe Pollin for taking it upon themselves to restore this important historical -- (applause.) If you haven't been there, you ought to go. It is a -- there's a wonderfully warm feeling. I saw the devotion that has gone into restoring this jewel, which was built nearly a century ago -- a jewel that houses three Torah scrolls rescued from the Holocaust. We're proud to have this great synagogue in the heart of our Nation's Capital, and we're glad a new generation is revitalizing this house of God. (Applause.)
The story of the Jewish people in America is a story of America, itself. [size=5][color=red]The pilgrims considered this nation a new Israel, [/color][/size]a refuge from persecution in Europe. Early Americans named many of their cities after places in Hebrew Scripture: Bethel and New Canaan, Shiloh and Salem. And when the first Jews arrived here, the children of Israel saw America as the land of promise, a golden land where they could practice their faith in freedom and live in liberty. (Applause.)
When the first Jewish settlers came to our shores 350 years ago, they were not immediately welcomed. Yet, from the onset, the Jews who arrived here demonstrated a deep commitment to their new land. An immigrant named Asser Levy volunteered to serve in the New Amsterdam Citizens Guard, which, unfortunately, had a policy of refusing to admit Jews. That didn't bother Levy. He was determined, like many others who have followed him, to break down the barriers of discrimination. Within two years, he took his rightful spot alongside his fellow citizens in the Guard. He was the first of many Jewish Americans who have proudly worn the uniform of the United States.
And one of the greatest Jewish soldiers America has ever known is Tibor Rubin. After surviving the Holocaust and the Nazi death camp, this young man came to America. He enlisted in the United States Army and fought in the Korean War. He was severely wounded and was later captured by the enemy. For two-and-a-half years, he survived in a POW camp. He risked his life for his fellow soldiers nearly every night by smuggling extra food for those who were ill -- it was a skill he had learned in the Nazi camps -- and because of his daring, as many as 40 American lives were saved.
This evening, I'm happy to announce that next week, I will bestow upon this great patriot our nation's highest award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. (Applause.)
Jewish Americans have made countless contributions to our land. The prophet, Jeremiah, once called out to this -- to his nation, "...seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf." For 350 years, American Jews have heeded these words, and you've prayed and worked for peace and freedom in America. Freedom to worship is why Jews came to America three-and-a-half centuries ago; it's why the Jews settled in Israel over five decades ago.
Our two nations have a lot in common, when you think about it. We were both founded by immigrants escaping religious persecution in other lands. We both have built vibrant democracies. Both our countries are founded on certain basic beliefs, that there is an Almighty God who watches over the affairs of men and values every life. These ties have made us natural allies, and these ties will never be broken. (Applause.)
Earlier today, I met in New York with Prime Minister Sharon and the Ambassador. I admire Prime Minister Sharon. (They're both mass killers) He's a man of courage; he's a man of peace. (Applause.) Once again, I expressed this nation's commitment to defending the security and well-being of Israel. (Applause.) I also assured him that I will not waver when it comes to spreading freedom around the world. I understand -- (applause) -- I understand this, that freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is an Almighty God's gift to each man and woman and child in this world. (Applause.)
Religious freedom is a foundation of fundamental human and civil rights. And when the United States promotes religious freedom, it is promoting the spread of democracy. And when we promote the spread of democracy, we are promoting the cause of peace. (Applause.)
Religious freedom is more than the freedom to practice one's faith. It is also the obligation to respect the faith of others. (Applause.) So to stand for religious freedom, we must expose and confront the ancient hatred of anti-Semitism, wherever it is found. (Applause.) When we find anti-Semitism at home, we will confront it. When we find anti-Semitism abroad, we will condemn it. (Applause.) And we condemn the desecration of synagogues in Gaza that followed Israel's withdrawal. (Applause.)
Under America's system of religious freedom, church and state are separate. (Applause.) Still, we have learned that faith is not solely a private matter. Men and women throughout our history have acted on the words of Scripture and they have made America a better, more hopeful place. When Rabbi Abraham Heschel marched with Martin Luther King, we saw modern-day prophets calling on America to honor its promises. We must allow people of faith to act on their convictions without facing discrimination.
And that's why my administration has started a faith-based and community initiative, to call on the armies of compassion to help heal broken hearts. A few years ago in New York, the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty was discouraged from even applying for federal funds because it had the word "Jewish" in its name. We must end this kind of discrimination if we want America to be a hopeful place. (Applause.)
At this moment, volunteers from all walks of life, across our great land, are helping the good folks of Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana recover from one of the worst natural disasters in our nation's history. The outpouring of compassion is phenomenal. American Jewish organizations have already raised over $10 million, plus the $50,000 tonight, for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. (Applause.)
About half of the 10,000 Jewish Americans who call New Orleans home found refuge in Houston. Rabbi Barry Gelman. of the United Orthodox Synagogues of Houston, immediately helped organize a task force to aid the evacuees. Five major Israeli universities with study abroad programs are opening their doors to college students whose schools have been shut down by the storm. (Great! Just what we need-- more Marxist-indoctrinated, entitlement demanding and whining niggers) [size=5][color=red]These are the good works of good people[/color][/size] relying on the wisdom of the Good Book, a book that tells us how God rescued life from the flood waters. And like Noah and his family, we have faith that as the waters recede, we will see life begin again.
I want to thank you for your patriotism. I want to thank you for compassion. I want to thank you for your love for the United States of America. All of [size=5][color=red]America is grateful to the Jewish people [u]for the treasures you have given us[/u][/color] [/size]over the past 350 years. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless our country. (Applause.) **
2005-09-17 23:39 | User Profile
I was not banned for that reason, OttoR.
This is why I was banned, moron.
"Originally Posted by TriRÿche ... her avatar is HILARIOUS!"
"Originally Posted by 311inAZ I think I finally figured it out! At first I thought it was showing one of the Three Stooges' gay side, but no its Nothern Bastion's current avatar reworked toward a gay angle, lol."
Then the jew lover banned me.
And that's enough to give her a long vacation.
2005-09-19 04:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Speaking only for myself, thank God for women. I like that they're different from us: that they're more emotional, more nurturing, even ditzier at times.
If women really were more nurturing, they would act the part. Instead, what they do is get millions of abortions every year. Wives are more likely to dump their husbands than vice versa. Mothers are more likely to kill their children - born or unborn - than are fathers. And instead of having lots of children to nurture, when given the choice, most women choose a career instead. What is "more nurturing" about that?
There are many reasons to thank God for women, but that they're "more nurturing" is not among these.
2005-09-19 04:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Wives are more likely to dump their husbands than vice versa.[/QUOTE] Is this really true? I can almost see it, especially with how things are she is going to end up with a lot of goodies from the divorce most likely(assuming they have anything) Interesting. But then I would have to also wonder how many of these women may dump their husbands because they are cheating,etc?
2005-09-19 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hamilton]If women really were more nurturing, they would act the part. Instead, what they do is get millions of abortions every year. Wives are more likely to dump their husbands than vice versa. Mothers are more likely to kill their children - born or unborn - than are fathers. And instead of having lots of children to nurture, when given the choice, most women choose a career instead. What is "more nurturing" about that?
There are many reasons to thank God for women, but that they're "more nurturing" is not among these.[/QUOTE][quote=MacDonald]This system is highly elaborated in Western cultures in both men and women, and it is psychometrically linked with empathy, altruism, and nurturance. Individuals who are very high on this system--predominantly females--are pathologically prone to altruistic, nurturant and dependent behavior (see MacDonald 1995a). Again, MacDonald thinks from a psychological point of view that this is fairly well established.
Although
[QUOTE=MacDonald]In ancestral environments this system was highly adaptive, resulting in a tendency toward pair bonding and high- investment parenting, as well as intrinsically motivated relationships of close friendship and trust. This system continues to be adaptive in the modern world in its role in underlying high-investment parenting, [B]but it is easy to see that the relative hypertrophy of this system may result in maladaptive behavior if a system designed for empathy, altruism, and nurturance of family members and others in a closely related group becomes directed to the world outside the family. [/B] [/QUOTE]It is certainly open to maladaptive behavior and subversion. Obviously MacDonald thinks this is happening. If you read his whole book, he says is is because due to Frankfurt School subversion/woman's lib, the influence of radical individualism on women subverts their natural impulses, redirecting their nurturing interests and loyalty from the family to outside the family. A.k.a. Hillary's It Takes A Village
I think this describes women's dissatisfaction with traditional family roles and social liberalism - the general effects resulting from the lose of autority and respect of traditional roles n a society subverted by FS radical individualism and feminism.
Abortion though I an not sure about. Sure women get abortions these days due to the influence of our modern regime of radical individualism. However i those cases where the partners disagree on the abortion, I think you find in most cases the party favoring the abortion is still the man. Woman also suffer well-proven long lasting psychic damage from abortion, demonstrating this is not a natural part of their basic, fundamental nature.
2005-09-19 05:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Is this really true? I can almost see it, especially with how things are she is going to end up with a lot of goodies from the divorce most likely(assuming they have anything) Interesting. But then I would have to also wonder how many of these women may dump their husbands because they are cheating,etc?[/QUOTE]I've read this is true - 2/3 of initial filings for divorce are by woman, as are a similar number of boyfriend/girlfriend breakups. But I think there are nuances here involved. Men it is known tend to react to relationship difficulties passively, by withdrawing, while woman want to verbalize it actively. So it is not surprising that the initial action verbalizing the breakdown of the relationship is made by women.
A more clearcut example might be those cases, (I think not too common) where a breakup really comes just out of the blue. You know, "honey, we've just grown apart", and/or "I've met someone else". I still think of these types of breakdowns as being a male type thing, from all we read about. At least no more female than male.
2005-09-19 05:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I think you find in most cases the party favoring the abortion is still the man. [/QUOTE]Maybe, maybe not. Even so it doesn't say too much for how nurturing these women are if they let a guy talk them into killing their child. And then there are the "it is my body I will do with it what I want" types. An accepted and thus a very convienient excuse for some.
[QUOTE]Woman also suffer well-proven long lasting psychic damage from abortion, demonstrating this is not a natural part of their basic, fundamental nature.[/QUOTE]I am not going to argue with this point, since it seems to be true for a lot of them, other than to say this obviously didn't stop them at the time.
2005-09-19 06:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Maybe, maybe not. Even so it doesn't say too much for how nurturing these women are if they let a guy talk them into killing their child. And then there are the "it is my body I will do with it what I want" types. An accepted and thus a very convienient excuse for some.
I am not going to argue with this point, since it seems to be true for a lot of them, other than to say this obviously didn't stop them at the time.[/QUOTE]Hamilton was just talking about the differences between man and women, whether woman are more nurturing than men, and I was replying there is some evidence that this is indeed so, based in part on their adapted natures and traditional social roles.
Sure, such can be overcome by training and conditioning, among these tendencies and pressures of a society. Women on an individual basis can commit every crime a man can, and can even of course excel as a group in certain types of pathological and sociopathic behavior if specifically conditioned to do so. The lengendary tribe of the amazons, so beloved by modern radical feminists, certainly must have adopted such measures.
And I certainly do see some evidence for this in modern society, as do sociologists, who noted the "gender gap" in certain types of sociopathic behavior such as crimes is becoming less.
2005-09-19 12:43 | User Profile
Every time things get slow at VNN they start with the anti woman crap, and you guys fall for it. :shocking:
2005-09-19 12:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I've read this is true - 2/3 of initial filings for divorce are by woman, as are a similar number of boyfriend/girlfriend breakups. But I think there are nuances here involved. Men it is known tend to react to relationship difficulties passively, by withdrawing, while woman want to verbalize it actively. So it is not surprising that the initial action verbalizing the breakdown of the relationship is made by women.
A more clearcut example might be those cases, (I think not too common) where a breakup really comes just out of the blue. You know, "honey, we've just grown apart", and/or "I've met someone else". I still think of these types of breakdowns as being a male type thing, from all we read about. At least no more female than male.[/QUOTE]
An honest man, how refreshing!