← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 6639 | Posts: 30 | Started: 2003-05-13
2003-05-13 20:13 | User Profile
Anyone see the McLaughlin Group on Sunday? Did PJB really say this?
[url=http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/home.htm]http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/home.htm[/url]
A republic not; an empire. On PBS's "McLaughlin Group" for May 11, Patrick Buchanan said that U.S. "allies" such as France and Mexico should be forced to "pay the price" for opposing (in company with the vast majority of their people) the Empire's invasion of Iraq. In the past Buchanan has occasionally written some interesting analyses of public affairs, but I'm afraid that any would-be friend of peace and liberty who, at this late date, actually supports the man will find himself almost inextricably deep into Gullible Fool territory. [Nicholas Strakon]
2003-05-13 21:21 | User Profile
Oh, PJ Buchanan -- ya got yer hand in so many pies ya never know what to expect.
C'mon, Paddy B -- are you a nationalist, a rightist, pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Black, anti-Black, pro-Bushy, anti-Bushy, what??? C'mon, Pat, I'm gettin' dizzy here...
As Grandpa used to say: "sh*t, or get off the pot."
:angry:
2003-05-13 21:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 16:21 ** Oh, PJ Buchanan -- ya got yer hand in so many pies ya never know what to expect.
C'mon, Paddy B -- are you a nationalist, a rightist, pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Black, anti-Black, pro-Bushy, anti-Bushy, what??? C'mon, Pat, I'm gettin' dizzy here... **
C'mon, Frankie. The guy's written what, 4 books? Coupling those with his thousands upon thousands of op-ed articles, speeches and TV sound bites, I think any thinking person can gain a fairly accurate picture of where PJB ultimately stands on the issues.
Of course that doesn't mean he's doing a Goldwater and making some bizarre statements late in life. I'll wait for the transcript on this one.
2003-05-13 21:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 13 2003, 17:27 ** > Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 16:21 ** Oh, PJ Buchanan -- ya got yer hand in so many pies ya never know what to expect.
C'mon, Paddy B -- are you a nationalist, a rightist, pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Black, anti-Black, pro-Bushy, anti-Bushy, what??? C'mon, Pat, I'm gettin' dizzy here... **
C'mon, Frankie. The guy's written what, 4 books? Coupling those with his thousands upon thousands of op-ed articles, speeches and TV sound bites, I think any thinking person can gain a fairly accurate picture of where PJB ultimately stands on the issues.
Of course that doesn't mean he's doing a Goldwater and making some bizarre statements late in life. I'll wait for the transcript on this one. **
TD,
Continuing the theme of great minds thinking alike from the other thread, I also thought of Goldwater in his twilight years when Franco earlier mentioned PJB's position that we had to fight WW2 to stop the Holocaust, an act of Wilsonian charity in foreign policy that I thought PJB would have opposed on the same grounds as he would/should oppose the foolishness of fighting a war in Afghanistan under the crusading justification of "freeing women from their veils."
2003-05-13 22:09 | User Profile
** Paleocon A. wrote:
earlier mentioned PJB's position that we had to fight WW2 to stop the Holocaust, an act of Wilsonian charity in foreign policy that I thought PJB would have opposed on the same grounds **
Paleo A. knows.
Ya see, Tex? This is why WNs bash your crusty, "sorta-legit" hero PJB: where does Pat REALLY stand on any issue? Can he be counted on to back us Whites? Just when we think Pat will back our action on "x" issue, he does something crazy. Loose cannon, that boy...
:sm:
2003-05-13 22:16 | User Profile
Typical Buchanan. He pretends that he's one of the good guys and at the last second stabs the real patriots in the back and kisses a little Hymie ass. He's pulled garbage like this only a thousand times. :taz:
2003-05-13 22:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 18:09 ** > ** Paleocon A. wrote:
earlier mentioned PJB's position that we had to fight WW2 to stop the Holocaust, an act of Wilsonian charity in foreign policy that I thought PJB would have opposed on the same grounds **
Paleo A. knows.
Ya see, Tex? This is why WNs bash your crusty, "sorta-legit" hero PJB: where does Pat REALLY stand on any issue? Can he be counted on to back us Whites? Just when we think Pat will back our action on "x" issue, he does something crazy. Loose cannon, that boy...
:sm: **
True, but loose cannons, as I pointed out in the other thread, can be useful at shaking things up in an otherwise ossified Establishment. I'll take a loose cannon over no cannon at all.
For now, try thinking in terms of creating chaos and disruption for the System, even if it means endorsing strange-looking alliances. We can work on ideological purity and angels dancing on the heads of pins later, after the securing of survival and safety permits such luxuries.
2003-05-13 22:33 | User Profile
I'd like to contribute to the PJB topic some information that might be enlightening.
A friend of mine who's 18 and a senior in high school about to go off to college recently read Buchanan's Death of the West. He had already read Duke's My Awakening some time back. My friend informed me that he felt that Buchanan's book was very useful because it fills in certain blanks in Duke's book. Specifically, he told me that Buchanan explained in great detail how the Jews took over academia (via the Frankfurt School), while Duke did not cover this in as much depth, instead focusing on the dimension of media control. For my friend, who is himself now in the midst of the hijacked education system, PJB's material was welcome and relevant.
Personally, I saw DOW as a sort of primer or introduction to Duke's more encyclopedic, and revealing, work. Some people might be willing to read Buchanan who might not read Duke, just as some will read Duke who would otherwise be fearful of Linder, etc. I see no reason to artificially try to constrain people's options in their political education. Word also has it (Sam Francis is the source) that PJB's book was more explicitly racialist but had to be altered in order to be acceptable to the publisher. At least something was published to a wide audience, though, hopefully triggering some sort of awakening process in some readers.
Anything that moves people away from Freeper-style "mainstream" conservatism is a good thing, and keep in mind that the Freepers regularly denounce Buchanan. That's worth something.
2003-05-13 23:16 | User Profile
I can't say I am suprised to hear the suposedly anti-imperialist PJB embrace the notion that those nations which failed to do the Likud party's bidding should be punished.
I am utterly amazed that any self identified paleo-con supports this brazen oppertunist. When listening to him speak I see no reason to think that he has some mental problem so that defense is out while the pattern of his caving into the demands of the propasphere shows he has no fortitude.
2003-05-14 00:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 13 2003, 21:11 **I have noticed lately that Buchanan seems to be trying to ingratiate himself with the Bush administration and the GOP establishment. I knew that his "Support our Troops and Our President" piece of March 19th was not a good omen.
However, I doubt that Buchanan would go that far in making a 180 degree turnaround from his previous position to making a statement that may as well have come from the mouth of William Kristol or Bill Bennett. Can anybody find a transcript of that particular MacLaughlin Group program?**
I don't have a transcript of the show, but I doubt seriously that Buchanan is taking a position any different that Allan Wall from Vdare where, he also seems to be criticizing Mexico for its lack of support for the war, although in the context of a general criticism of Mexico's unfriendliness to America and Americans throughout its history. I didn't see anyone suggest Allan Wall or Vdare was selling out to the neocons on this thread.
If you look at the article, he seems to be doing two things 1. Describe the Mexican hostility as just another reflection of the kneejerk hostility of Mexican popular culture toward "the gringo" and our culture and society, and 2. drive a wedge between Vincente and Jorge, suggesting that Jorge has been personally betrayed by Vincente's opposition to the war, and should remember that when immigration negotiations come up again. > ** How will Foxââ¬â¢s rejection of the Iraq war affect U.S.-Mexican relations and the exaggerated ââ¬Årelationshipââ¬Â Bush apparently thought he had with Fox?
Bush is said to value personal loyalty. Will he understand that Fox does not feel (and never has felt) the same about Bush as Bush feels about him?
Yes, itââ¬â¢s a sad story of unrequited love.
Since the Iraq war has begun, Fox and Bush have only spoken once by phone. And Bush uncharacteristically took 4 days to return the call!
Now that Baghdad is taken, it appears Fox is attempting to repair fences. Last week, Fox stated his confidence that ââ¬Åonce the armed conflict is concluded, the bilateral relationship can be reconstructed.ââ¬Â
(ââ¬ÅReconoce Fox decepción de EU hacia Méxicoââ¬Â, Universal, April 9th, 2003)
Fox is here referring to Mexicoââ¬â¢s distinction between its bilateral relationship with the U.S., and its multilateral relationship centered on the UN (and Mexico now heads the UN Security Council). The Mexican government view is that its multilateral UN-type diplomacy wonââ¬â¢t effect its bilateral relationship with the U.S.
**Translation: Mexico expects the U.S. to open its border with Mexico. But donââ¬â¢t expect Mexico to back the U.S. at the UN or any other international forum. That would be too embarrassing!
Will the U.S. and Mexico get back to business as usual ââ¬â the systematic deconstruction of U.S. sovereignty in favor of a Mexican veto over U.S. immigration policy?
Or does George W. Bush, having been burned by his ââ¬Åamigo,ââ¬Â now have a more realistic view?**
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=7328&hl=mexico,and,wall]Subversion Salsa With Your Freedom Fries[/url]**
I suspect the reference to France was just for cover. France in a vital sense is basically irrelevant to the United States, just as irrelevent as Mexico is vitally relevent. If you're going to play the patriot game, you have to sound the jingles a little bit. You can't say, "Chirac is just being principled, but Vincente is a treacherous little greaser".
Practically though it doesn't make any difference what we do with France. If we get nasty we may drink a little less wine and cheese. Mexico as always is the real issue.
Once again, the Buchanoskeptics reservations, and Buchanophobes fears, are shown to be "much ado about nothing."
I tell you, if so many people would only spent one-tenth the energy watching and fighting the neocons as watching and trying to micromanage and bash Buchanan, paleoconservatism might do a whole lot better.
2003-05-14 00:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 18:16 I am utterly amazed that any self identified paleo-con supports this brazen oppertunist. When listening to him speak I see no reason to think that he has some mental problem so that defense is out while the pattern of his caving into the demands of the propasphere shows he has no fortitude.
And here I thought Kierkegaard was the only melancholy Dane. ;)
I seem to be the only ardent Buchanan supporter here, and I don't have the inclination to get sidetracked into any kind of drawn out defense of his every written and spoken word. I spent almost all my energy doing that in a wasted and futile effort at the Free Republic, battling the ADL goons there. Buchanan's record stands on its own and he's more than capable of speaking for and defending himself. I will make the caveat that I don't defend him in every one of his positions, the most obvious ones that come to mind is his defense of the Homeland Security Patriot Acts and the Federal War on Drugs.
But if it wasn't for Patrick Buchanan then I dare say OD wouldn't exist and I more than likely would never had the opportunity to come to know men like AntiYuppie, Frederick William I, Sertorius, Okiereddust, Zoroaster, A.F. Decentralist and many other fine American patriots. In the end, that was privelege enough for me. No doubt there's no future political viability in Buchanan, but it sure was a fun ride over the last decade. For that he will always have my respect and thanks for doing what he has done.
2003-05-14 00:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 14 2003, 00:09 **And here I thought Kierkegaard was the only melancholy Dane. ;)
**
TD, are you suggesting something is still rotten in the state of Denmark? :D
2003-05-14 00:37 | User Profile
** Tex wrote:
In the end, that was privelege enough for me. No doubt there's no future political viability in Buchanan, but it sure was a fun ride over the last decade. **
It's great to be loyal to an "old friend," in your case PJB, but I am reminded of that old saying: "don't listen to what a person says, rather, watch what they do."
I know that you are fond of PJB, but, let us be realistic: he had numerous chances to show his colors by his actions. What did those actions tell us?
I am not picking a fight. Not at all. I'm just trying to get you past the romanticized idea of Buchanan and into a more realistic viewpoint re: our culture. Maybe he had his reasons for picking a Black female as a running mate, I don't know, but.......heck, even a mild paleo would not pick a Black female running mate. I mean, I'm no rocket scientist, but c'mon, ya know?....let's all [all Whites] see the forest for the trees.
2003-05-14 00:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 14 2003, 00:37 **Maybe he had his reasons for picking a Black female as a running mate, I don't know, but.......heck, even a mild paleo would not pick a Black female running mate. **
I don't know Frank, maybe he had some hidden reasons for picking a black running mate like Foster that we don't know about. After all, as a black woman once told me
**The blacker the coal, the hotter the fire ** :D
(Although I don't expect VNN to buy this ;) )
2003-05-14 01:15 | User Profile
"And here I thought Kierkegaard was the only melancholy Dane. " As I am not a Dane and not fond of Kierkegaard your joke fails.
"Buchanan's record stands on its own and he's more than capable of speaking for and defending himself. I will make the caveat that I don't defend him in every one of his positions, the most obvious ones that come to mind is his defense of the Homeland Security Patriot Acts and the Federal War on Drugs."
You're an ardent supporter of someone: that defends the police state antics of the Patriot Acts, ritually comdemns "racism", thinks that America fought in WWII to help assure a brown Europa, thinks that M.L. King was a fine man, supports an undefined but lower level of immigration because it will allow for the magic of assimilation, thinks that countries which failed to grovel before the Likud party should be punished and thinks that third world immigration can be a source of national pride. That I think pretty much sums it up although I wish it was other wise.
2003-05-14 02:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@May 13 2003, 20:09 ** > Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 18:16 I am utterly amazed that any self identified paleo-con supports this brazen oppertunist. When listening to him speak I see no reason to think that he has some mental problem so that defense is out while the pattern of his caving into the demands of the propasphere shows he has no fortitude.
And here I thought Kierkegaard was the only melancholy Dane. ;)
I seem to be the only ardent Buchanan supporter here, and I don't have the inclination to get sidetracked into any kind of drawn out defense of his every written and spoken word. I spent almost all my energy doing that in a wasted and futile effort at the Free Republic, battling the ADL goons there. Buchanan's record stands on its own and he's more than capable of speaking for and defending himself. I will make the caveat that I don't defend him in every one of his positions, the most obvious ones that come to mind is his defense of the Homeland Security Patriot Acts and the Federal War on Drugs.
But if it wasn't for Patrick Buchanan then I dare say OD wouldn't exist and I more than likely would never had the opportunity to come to know men like AntiYuppie, Frederick William I, Sertorius, Okiereddust, Zoroaster, A.F. Decentralist and many other fine American patriots. In the end, that was privelege enough for me. No doubt there's no future political viability in Buchanan, but it sure was a fun ride over the last decade. For that he will always have my respect and thanks for doing what he has done. **
TD,
Not so fast. I'm not an anti-Buchananite by any stretch of the imagination. I think some of the Buchanan critics are "all stick and no carrot." It makes more sense to me to reward Buchanan with praise when he gets it right, and maybe offer some gentle and constructive criticism when he veers off target, rather than fully throw him to the wolves.
I am, after all, the author of this article that's pasted below....
[url=http://www.etherzone.com/2002/fall021902.shtml]SPARE BUCHANAN THE FIRING SQUAD: BASELESS AND FOOLISH CRITICISM FROM THE RIGHT[/url]
By: Paul Fallavollita
Patrick Buchanan gave an interview February 7 on Alex Jonesââ¬â¢ radio show. Its purpose was to discuss Buchananââ¬â¢s new book, The Death of the West, but some overzealous callers took it upon themselves to cast aspersions on Buchananââ¬â¢s character over past political minutiae. Echoing a previous caller, one caller told Buchanan, "you let us down," referring to Buchananââ¬â¢s endorsement of Bush Sr. and Dole as "better than Clinton" in 1992 and 1996, respectively. The caller also blamed Buchanan for not bringing the Reform Party to victory in 2000.
Buchanan rebuked the caller, stating, "I donââ¬â¢t need this kind of abuse at this point in my life when Iââ¬â¢ve given my life to causes I believe in. Thereââ¬â¢s an element of ingratitude among some folks, and youââ¬â¢re entitled to it, but I donââ¬â¢t owe you nothin,ââ¬â¢ my friend. Iââ¬â¢ve done the best I can; Iââ¬â¢m doing the best I can with this bookââ¬Â¦Iââ¬â¢m trying to save my country." I agree with Mr. Buchanan, and I thank him for all he has done to educate and inspire us. He has my eternal gratitude. The hostile callers fail to see that Buchanan has done much more for America than most people have with similar background, money, and visibility. He has indeed done his best.
Buchanan is used to dealing with baseless and foolish criticism from the Left and Center. He should not have to face it from the Right. I am dedicating my column today to expressing my outrage at the audacity of that caller, and am appealing to those of us on the populist Right to simply wise up.
Buchanan is an honored elder in our Movement. Buchanan authored "The Voice in the Desert," the introduction to the Thirtieth Anniversary Edition of Senator Barry Goldwaterââ¬â¢s The Conscience of a Conservative, the book that prompted my political awakening thirteen years ago, at the age of twelve. He also penned the foreword to Justin Raimondoââ¬â¢s Reclaiming the American Right, a text to be treasured for reminding us what conservatism meant before it was reduced to what it is today: the re-warmed liberalism of thirty years ago.
Buchanan gave patriots three encyclopedic books on the most important issues to Americaââ¬â¢s survival: A Republic, Not an Empire, on foreign policy; The Great Betrayal, on trade; and his latest, The Death of The West, on immigration and population demographics. These books complement each other, encouraging informed public debate on the "National Question": whether America will exist as a distinct, independent nation in continuity with her history and tradition. They are sound, excellent, speak for themselves, and will nourish our Movement for years to come.
Some in our Movement expect our leaders to work miracles. When the miraculous fails to materialize, we organize into a circular firing squad. There is no room for compromise or vacillation. We can give our ideological enemies no quarter, for the continued existence of America depends upon the total destruction of the New World Order and its liberal and neocon enablers. However, there is a difference between maintaining integrity, discipline, and accountability in our Movement on the one hand, and a needless eating of our own on the other. That caller crossed that line. It is easy to be an armchair general, with 20/20 hindsight. It is too bad, though, that it is not as easy for some people to exercise verbal restraint and discretion. It is worse when some cannot see that Buchanan, who for decades has dedicated his talents and intellect to our Cause, is a true ally.
I was glad Buchanan told the caller where to go. Buchanan ended the interview early, which was a loss considering how important the topic is and how erudite Buchananââ¬â¢s insights are, but his departure was justified and understandable. Why should Buchanan cast his pearls before unappreciative swine? The caller should be ashamed that he spoiled the interview for the entire audience, and possibly cast a shadow on a good host like Alex Jones. Jones tried to defend Buchanan and salvage the situation, and that deserves much kudos. Jones respects Buchanan, and he respects his callers by not screening his calls like the mainstream, infotainment fake Rush Limbaugh.
Unfortunately, some callers do not exercise their freedom responsibly, but we have to take the good with the bad and avoid prior restraint censorship. I hope Buchanan will return to the Alex Jones Show some day, and that the callers will show maturity. We on the populist Right owe Patrick Buchanan a lot, including our respect.
And TD, we can chalk up another positive effect from PJB to the extent that he helped inspire the creation of OD. We're all indebted to you, and him.
2003-05-14 02:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by triskelion@May 13 2003, 21:15 ** You're an ardent supporter of someone: that defends the police state antics of the Patriot Acts, ritually comdemns "racism", thinks that America fought in WWII to help assure a brown Europa, thinks that M.L. King was a fine man, supports an undefined but lower level of immigration because it will allow for the magic of assimilation, thinks that countries which failed to grovel before the Likud party should be punished and thinks that third world immigration can be a source of national pride. That I think pretty much sums it up although I wish it was other wise. **
That all may be true, but keep in mind that in exchange for his occasional nods toward the Establishment taboos, he's able to stay on the air on television and has access to a mass audience and he's able to slip in some good points that otherwise no one would widely hear in America. PJB has publicly exposed the "Amen Corner" for Israel in this country and taken heat for it. Were he more direct, that outlet to a mass audience would be completely lost.
2003-05-14 03:15 | User Profile
When it comes to Buchanan, I have to side with triskelion. If Buchanan had been a serious candidate, he would have picked David Duke, not the Foster woman, as his running mate. He certainly would have gotten more votes than he did. Undoubtedly, the Foster woman turned off any white nationalists who might have voted for Buchanan. If memory serves, Buchanan got less than 2% of the national vote; maybe he could have gotten 10% with Duke as his running mate.
Buchanan is nothing more than a greedy opportunist. His sister Bay got rich from contributions and the Perot money in the Reform Party, and he is making big bucks at MSNBC, playing the useful goy to the Jews paying his salary.
2003-05-14 07:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Zoroaster@May 14 2003, 03:15 When it comes to Buchanan, I have to side with triskelion.ÃÂ If Buchanan had been a serious candidate, he would have picked David Duke, not the Foster woman, as his running mate.ÃÂ He certainly would have gotten more votes than he did.ÃÂ Undoubtedly, the Foster woman turned off any white nationalists who might have voted for Buchanan.ÃÂ If memory serves, Buchanan got less than 2% of the national vote; maybe he could have gotten 10% with Duke as his running mate. Well if you're going to bring triskelion into this, you should note firstly that he doesn't have a very high opinion of Duke. That the "Duke running mate would generate 10% of the vote" theory in any event has always appared to me basically to be part of the same "all it takes is for brave people to take an uncompromising stand based on our dogmas and mantras" - no adjustment to reality is necessary. " I discussed in the thread above, although in Duke's case I'd have to qualify it since he's a unique individual politically, who in certain specfic circumstances could have unique success. But the 2000 wlection doesn't seem to me to be it off the top of my head.
Buchanan is nothing more than a greedy opportunist.ÃÂ His sister Bay got rich from contributions and the Perot money in the Reform Party, and he is making big bucks at MSNBC, playing the useful goy to the Jews paying his salary.
I'm not sure about your ad hominem on Pat, but I'll admit to expressing reservations about Pat not that much diferent, i.e. are his political activities really just advertising campaigns for his books? But I do wonder about your methodology. Do we want prominent men in the media to show some sympathy with our message? Because if theyt become prominent, they WILL make money off it. People don't work for MSNBC or write best-sellers for free, at least not in this country.
2003-05-14 07:55 | User Profile
Triskelion, you are 100% right. This is why there is no effective nationalist movement in America. Because white nationalists here live in a fantasy land where anyone who drifts a mm in their direction is assumed to be a "secret suporter" or some such. This is used as an excuse for not doing constructive things like organizing political parties or producing quality media. We need more Europeans like you engaging the pathetic "movement" we have here and laying down the law.
I heard pat on hannity when his book came out. Hannity went out of his way to emphasize that the problem was not race but "multiculturalism" and that its wonderful to let all this mud into our country, just that we have to do a better job "assimilating" it. Pat did not disagree. He just said "right sean." He is not a white nationalist.
Pat kicked white nationalists off his presidential campaign and denounced "racism." He is no friend of mine or of any white American. He is not that different from a goyish horowitz, the way he plays the race issue. Stop begging for scraps off the table of the controlled media, because that's all pat is. Even from a mainstream perspective he is tired and past his prime.
2003-05-14 08:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@May 13 2003, 19:37 **It's great to be loyal to an "old friend,"
**
Indeed I try to be loyal. Loyalty and integrity in relationships means infinitely more to me than ideological purity.
I know that you are fond of PJB, but, let us be realistic: he had numerous chances to show his colors by his actions. What did those actions tell us?
That he is human.
I'm just trying to get you past the romanticized idea of Buchanan and into a more realistic viewpoint re: our culture.
Not the first time I've been called a romantic and probably won't be the last, my friend. Romance of an ideal has moved men, armies and nations throughout history, all celebrated and put into verse by the poets of the age.
Romance and faith create passion to tear down and build up. Dry, rational objectivism builds a beautiful house that no one really lives in.
2003-05-15 01:32 | User Profile
White Nationalists have already accepted the the assumation of power cannot come thought political means. Therefore, people like Pat Buchanan are on our side but cannot admit it .. better that they do not. For every swaggart negro, there is a white man who detests him The best thing we can do now is tuff it up. The blacks and spicks look at us as totally fearful Our captainship was based on manifest destiny They only recognize forced pain and guns its worth dying for.. why suffer through this false control.... next time you see a negro kissing your daughter, of on the street tell him he is a negro and tell him he is a piece of sh*t.. because that's exactly what he is, an eggplant.
2003-05-15 01:37 | User Profile
I am serious. Confront him...
2003-05-15 02:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@May 14 2003, 21:32 ** next time you see a negro kissing your daughter, of on the street tell him he is a negro and tell him he is a piece of sh*t.. because that's exactly what he is, an eggplant. **
You can't be serious about confronting a Negro "on the street." If it's a Negro with your daughter, then confronting him is permissible since he is directly affecting your family. But some random Negro on the street? What good would that do?
I've always believed that it makes no sense to bother or harass individual minorities going about their business because all that can do is get you into trouble with the law and you will have accomplished nothing. There are millions of minorities in this country. How is messing with one going to change the political situation in this country? It's a waste of time. Minorities cannot be dealt with by us as individuals, but must be dealt with politically as a collective. We're nowhere near that point yet.
2003-05-15 03:01 | User Profile
I'm not sure about your ad hominem on Pat, but I'll admit to expressing reservations about Pat not that much diferent, i.e. are his political activities really just advertising campaigns for his books? But I do wonder about your methodology. Do we want prominent men in the media to show some sympathy with our message? Because if theyt become prominent, they WILL make money off it. People don't work for MSNBC or write best-sellers for free, at least not in this country.
You've identified the problem, FW:
Our elite class, Buchanan for example, puts financial gains above political principals, which explains exactly why and how Zionist/Jews control America.
America will remain a colony of Israel as long as these opportunists accept Jewish money and lemmings vote Republicrat. A moralist wouldn't make excuses for these creeps.
"We take our shape, it is true, within and against the cage of reality bequeathed us at our birth; and yet it is precisely through our dependence on this reality that we are most endlessly betrayed."
James Baldwin, "Everybody's Protest Novel" (1949)
2003-05-15 04:14 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
I hedged my 10% with a "maybe" knowing it was perhaps too optimistic. On the other hand, Duke is charismatic, more so than Buchanan and a better speaker in my opinion. Who knows what would have happened if Buchanan had given Duke some credibility by chosing him for his running mate? The one-eyed Jew, television, would have howled. No doubt, Duke would have picked up on it with some great rhetorical come backs. If Buchanan had had the couage to run with Duke instead of the "politically correct" Foster woman, we might have been surprised. He wouldn't have won, but it could have changed the political climate in America, and the Reform Party might still be in the news.
A person into conspiracy theories might believe Buchanan's purpose all along was to wreck the Reform Part and discourage any other third-party movements.
2003-05-16 03:16 | User Profile
I happenned to be a little more p'oed that night than usual, but the facts remain... think about it.. and I know there are "good" negroes out there. But I also can't help but cringe when I see one with a white girl. You see, the blacks KNOW that we fear them. They are getting cocky. The don't think whitey can stand up for himself. They think they are stronger. So next time you see a black man with a white woman, just walk up to them and ask the woman - " what are you doing ? " or say to the black, " get your grubby monkey hands off this girl " .. I just think its a good way to vent racial feelings instead of letting them build and never be addressed.
2003-05-16 17:10 | User Profile
So next time you see a black man with a white woman, just walk up to them and ask the woman - " what are you doing ? " or say to the black, " get your grubby monkey hands off this girl " .. I just think its a good way to vent racial feelings instead of letting them build and never be addressed.
Reread PAââ¬â¢s comment above. For the moment, confronting ethnics is an utter waste of your time, temporary satisfaction of having ââ¬Ådone somethingââ¬Â notwithstanding. Not to mention that the altercation may see you charged with assault. And all this assumes that you are discriminating in your choice of venue and take care to survey the scene for possible interventionists. Pick the wrong playground to blow off steam and you tempt becoming a statistic.
I share in your frustration. All clear-thinking White men whose instincts for racial preservations have not been etiolated naturally experience violent impulses upon seeing their females with aliens. Nor is it enough to tell yourself that the broad in question is a lost cause and that you would not touch her with the proverbial ten-foot pole, for her removal from our common genetic stock represents a loss for future generations. Regrettably, it is a case of coming to terms with the accounting--number of expandable Whites, whether by choice or unfortunate happenstance. Nothing can be done for them, but keeping your feelings in check is doable. Think happy thoughts. For instance, though youââ¬â¢re obviously not a Darwinist, thinking of the manââ¬â¢s letters to friends may bring some relief.
There may come opportunities when such impulses can be granted expression in a more meaningful manner. Tired of dancing on the side of false angels more whites will eventually opt to hunt with the wolves. But will the pack be big enough to contend successfully with hordes of foreigners and race-traitors? This is the significant question of our age. Nothing else matters, certainly not the presence of yet another brother with a befuddled White girl in tow. :sleep:
2003-05-16 22:36 | User Profile
White Nationalists have already accepted the the assumation of power cannot come thought political means. Therefore, people like Pat Buchanan are on our side but cannot admit it
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What?
2003-05-17 02:46 | User Profile
There are times when upon absorbing the circumstances, I cannot take a good white girl with a negro. ANd when I see it happenning, I speak out. I speak quietly at first, usually, although there have been a couple times when I blurt out" get your monkey hands off her "// I've done that. I cannot stand to see a negro with a young white girl. ANd nothing can stop me from making them from feeling uncomfortable. That's the impetus which the white girl needs to stop her folly. They are not equal. I don't care.. I'm smart not to be arrested, but I do it. and I do it with PRIDE. Negroes have no right to prey upon the fleece of our race. I confront them. I am willing to fight. A white with balls omg.