← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Eendracht Maakt Mag

Thread 7336

Thread ID: 7336 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2003-06-14

Eendracht Maakt Mag [OP]

2003-06-14 03:55 | User Profile

I am voting Al Sharpton in the next election-an idiot in office who will completely polarize America by racial lines is exactly what white Americans need to wake up.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-14 04:20 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Prodigal Son@Jun 13 2003, 23:55 * ** I am voting Al Sharpton in the next election-an idiot in office who will completely polarize America by racial lines is exactly what white Americans need to wake up. **

I'm considering this as well. At any rate, I know with about 90% certainty that I'll be voting for a Democrat for president. Of course, here in the South it really won't make a lot of difference since the GOP stronghold is pretty tight. It would make a difference in the "swing states" like Pennsylvania and parts of the Midwest, where the outcome really is up for grabs. Or dare I mention Florida?

il ragno

2003-06-14 04:41 | User Profile

Al's in the catbird seat these days. He's the guy you pay to run against you, since he can't win but no one would dare attempt to keep him off the ballot.

I assume Al has extracted some recompense from the Bush White House to roadblock viable candidates....I also think he has cut a similar deal with NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg to offer a fake opponent for his re-election campaign the following year.

PaleoconAvatar

2003-06-14 04:53 | User Profile

*Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 14 2003, 00:41 * ** Al's in the catbird seat these days. He's the guy you pay to run against you, since he can't win but no one would dare attempt to keep him off the ballot.

The Anti-Kingmaker. That's entirely possible.

Franco

2003-06-14 05:28 | User Profile

Ya know, Al's always been a hero of mine. Why, it seems like only yesterday that Al and I were walking thru a park in Joo Yuck City on a cool morning, just strolling past the negro muggers plying their trade, walking past AIDS-infected Mexican fudgepackers rectal-rooting in the bushes just off the sidewalk.... yes, those were wonderful times...and, heck, I remember Al had this cute little dimple that would appear whenever he told a Hillary Clinton joke.... [siggghhh]....[choke]....

:D :D :D :D

[hmmm, hmmm -- humming the love theme from the TV series "Roots"....]

il ragno

2003-06-14 06:11 | User Profile

I think I'm just gonna start calling you Special Agent Franco.

Roy Batty

2003-06-14 06:23 | User Profile

*Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 13 2003, 22:11 * ** I think I'm just gonna start calling you Special Agent Franco. **

Is that the same as ... Agent 86?

kminta

2003-06-14 14:49 | User Profile

C'mon, guys. Al Sharpton for president??? Get Real!!! :lol: America is not (and never will be) ready for a Black president. Jesse Jackson took a shot at the White House some years back and failed because ZOG would be damned before they have a Negro as the Commander-In-Chief. The Jews needs to reassure White America that this country is still under "their control" and a Black man as president would only intensify the already high suspicions Whites have for their government.

But if America were to have a Black president, it certainly wouldn't be Al Sharpton. A man of his rep would drop out from the election almost as soon as he entered it. Besides, I think the Jews would have a much more difficult time bringing Sharpton under their control as they did with Clintion and Bush Jr. For ZOG, a much better choice would be Colin Powell or Carl McCall. These two Blacks are in good standing with Whites and the Jews could bring them under their thrall with relative ease.

Walter Yannis

2003-06-14 20:57 | User Profile

Originally posted by kminta@Jun 14 2003, 14:49 * ** C'mon, guys. Al Sharpton for president??? Get Real!!!* :lol: America is not (and never will be) ready for a Black president. Jesse Jackson took a shot at the White House some years back and failed because ZOG would be damned before they have a Negro as the Commander-In-Chief. The Jews needs to reassure White America that this country is still under "their control" and a Black man as president would only intensify the already high suspicions Whites have for their government.

Al's a black nationalist.

So, I'm thinking maybe we have something in common.

Voting for Al Sharpton will bring black nationalism into the open and maybe it will give the general nationalist message - white, black and Aztlan - a good airing.

That's gotta be good for us white nationalists, right? My idiotic fellow whites will see the truth that they either stick together or become second-class citizens in the land their ancestors conquered.

Al's got my vote. I'll probably even throw a few bucks at his campaign.

Walter

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-06-14 21:00 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jun 14 2003, 14:57 * **

That's gotta be good for us white nationalists, right?ÃÂ My idiotic fellow whites will see the truth that they either stick together or become second-class citizens in the land their ancestors conquered.

Al's got my vote.ÃÂ I'll probably even throw a few bucks at his campaign.

Walter **

I could not agree more Walter. Think of all the wonderful things Al can do: implement ridiculous hate-crime policies, marginalize whites by expanding affirmative actions, and, hell, if we are really lucky he could sign a slavery reparations bill into law! This kind of obvious ethnic identity politics is exactly what white Americans need to "wake up." A few of my acquaintances who are not WNs but rather of the Kosher kahnservative persuasion have told me that if a slavery reparations Bill were signed into law, they would view white nationalism in a far more favorable light. So, the question is, which political candidate who stands even the most remote chance of election can marginalize whites enough to knock a little sense into their heads?

Answer: Al Sharpton.

Faust

2003-06-14 21:07 | User Profile

Come on guys this would only help Jorge el Bush. And let Bush win by 70%. We need to get rid of Bush! A strong Bush is very Bad. What we need is a new Clinton! The Right needs to start fighting.

What we need is more large anti-white riots!

Faust

2003-06-14 21:09 | User Profile

Usa Today Poll on Bush and the Clintons! Clinton has 54% Approval rate!

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=8494]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...?showtopic=8494[/url]

Faust

2003-06-14 21:14 | User Profile

AntiYuppie,

Great Post! You are most Right!!

**Having Sharpton or some other unelectable fringe-leftie as the Democratic nominee guarantees a Bush victory. Provided Congress remains Republican, I'd like to see Bush lose the White House to some moderate Democrat just so the two parties stonewall each other's destructive proposals over petty partisan politics (conversely, if Congress is Democrat dominated, I hope to see Shrub stay in office). **

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-06-14 21:15 | User Profile

*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 14 2003, 15:11 * ** Having Sharpton or some other unelectable fringe-leftie as the Democratic nominee guarantees a Bush victory. **

Heck, I'll do anything to keep Mr. Shrub out of office. Perhaps the best alternative is to not vote at all...

Walter Yannis

2003-06-14 21:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by Prodigal Son+Jun 14 2003, 21:00 -->
QUOTE* (Prodigal Son @ Jun 14 2003, 21:00 )

QUOTE* (AntiYuppie @ Jun 14 2003, 13:11 )
<!--QuoteBegin-Prodigal Son@Jun 14 2003, 03:55 * ** I am voting Al Sharpton in the next election-an idiot in office who will completely polarize America by racial lines is exactly what white Americans need to wake up. **

I've heard this "worse is better" claim tossed around before, but I think it's misguided for a number of reasons.

First of all, perhaps you've noticed that whenever there's a Democrat in the White House, the GOP can blame all of the country's ills on the Democrats and present themselves as messiahs to the country; this in spite of the fact that the GOP favors many of the same policies. This is what motivated so many rightwingers who may have favored somebody more hardline (such as Buchanan, etc) to vote for Bush, i.e. "keeping a Democrat out of the White House." In the improbable event of a Sharpton victory, even liberal Democrats will look appealing to conservatives by comparison, putting the political center even further to the Left than it was before.

Second, the best case scenario for us is to have one party control the Legislative branch and another control the Executive. Why? Because that way fewer of the destructive policies pushed by either party get pushed through. When Clinton wanted to start a war, there was some opposition from the House and Senate: not out of principle, but because Clinton was a Democrat and Congress was Republican dominated. Similarly, the Democrats tried to block Bush's Gulf War II.

Having Sharpton or some other unelectable fringe-leftie as the Democratic nominee guarantees a Bush victory. Provided Congress remains Republican, I'd like to see Bush lose the White House to some moderate Democrat just so the two parties stonewall each other's destructive proposals over petty partisan politics (conversely, if Congress is Democrat dominated, I hope to see Shrub stay in office). **

Worse is better. No matter who ends up the figurehead in the Whitehouse, it's going to get worse. No matter who plops their asses down in the house, senate, it's going to get worse. It's the speed or maybe "route" to (continued) ruin that might be a bit different depending on who/what party (all of them bought out anyway) has the leverage in the branches of our "government", but it's going to get worse. Things getting worse is the only way that most whites are going to wake up. Reality needs to be right on their doorsteps. It's the only thing that's going to get them to stop believing what they hear from "the Prez", Dan Rather, or read in the local birdcage liner.

There might be differences between some of the camps, as in the example with Clinton and his war cited above. But domestically, we keep moving in the same direction, and the march toward open tyranny picked up the pace under Bush. The cadence under Clinton was literally at the same pace as his photo op jogs. Bush has hopped on his Segway scooter to lead the charge full on into Soviet America, most Americans de facto tools of ZOG at your service.

Sharpton can't win. He can provide some comic relief, and possibly opportunities to pin politicos from both "sides" in a few corners. Too bad we don't have some loudmouth "latino" to throw in there in the hope of opening a few more eyes.

I see AY's point, but any stalling doesn't help things. It puts things on hold, and provides something to take attention away from other nefarious activities our "reps" are up to.

Drakmal

2003-06-15 07:19 | User Profile

Exactly. The speed of descent is possibly the most key factor. If today's leftist policies had been forced upon America all at once a century ago, we might have become the first 'Nazis'. Instead, our society was slowly corrupted, and today most of our countrymen are ardent defenders of our corrupters and occupiers, without an apparent end in sight.

Compare to Russia, which was taken over quite swiftly, without any real adjustment by the people, only forced silence. Russia is now, after only 80 or so years, starting to emerge from under the judaeo-bolshevik boot, with some knowledge of how they got under it in the first place.

We are basically in a controlled downward spiral with international jewry at the yoke; the trick is to coax the pilot to eject so we can take control of the plane again, while there are still courageous people left to do it--and what better way to do that than to make the descent spiral seem no-longer-controllable?

Go Al Go!

Avalanche

2003-06-15 16:11 | User Profile

and what better way to do that than to make the descent spiral seem no-longer-controllable? {sigh} And how does one stop believing it is already an uncontrollable spiral?

MadScienceType

2003-06-16 18:10 | User Profile

This kind of obvious ethnic identity politics is exactly what white Americans need to "wake up."

Well, I might agree with you, except for the case studies of South Africa and Rhodesia. There, the whites were already a minority and far more cohesive than whites in this country, with a much less-developed ZOG agitprop infrastructure in place. Yet, they still turned their country over to bush-monkeys in spite of the fact they knew better. They meekly committed suicide, en masse, (or fled if they had the chance) yet some think that open black or hispanic nationalism will energize American whites? Nope, all ZOG would have to do to derail that would be to air more dateline specials on the evils of white racism.

Mere prominence of ethnic nationalism will not be enough to arouse the Anglo-Saxon's wrath. No, probably the only thing that'll do that will be when the Carr brothers' heirs apparent are in your living room forcing you to sodomize your roomate with a rake, but by then it'll be a tad too late. Of course, your friends and relatives might benefit from the stellar example, but then again, they might choose to engage in loving forgiveness and absolve the Congoids of any responsiblity, as Heather Mueller's parents did.

I agree with Roy, a lot of Whites will have to suffer before there's any sort of reaction. While certainly, worse is better, I'm thinking that some might not get just how bad "worse" is going to have to be to provoke the reaction hoped for. I fully expect the next Reginald Denny's last words to be, "I am not a racist!" just before the cinderblock caves in his noggin. Kris Kime's follow-up will no doubt gasp out an apology for James Byrd between kicks and may even disown the South as a whole if he has time.

I hope I am wrong (and if ZOG and its propaganda machine goes bankrupt it would go a long way towards bringing about the desired result) but I fear that I'm not.

Roy Batty

2003-06-16 21:16 | User Profile

White Americans are not the same as the whites in SA or Rhodesia. I've never thought the whites in those areas were more cohesive. The whites from SA that I've met over the last ten years, along with many of the whites from there I've heard in the media, all seem to be "me first, what's in if for me?" types. Granted, most would say it's probably not a statistically large enough slice of the population pie to get a true idea, but to a man, in person, they have all come off that way. Quite a few expatriate SA's in S. Cal. I wonder how they made it here with the problems that white immigrants have in general.

Back to the US, the whites here are of a different stock. A different mentality in many ways. Yes, a lot of them are going to get hurt or killed in order to light the fuse. And MadScienceType is probably right when he gives us his ideas on the last words of some of the unfortunates. Brainwashing is hard to overcome. But it's nothing that some serious ass-kickings can't remove. And those times are on their way, no matter how things end up when it's all said and done.

Rumblestrip

2003-06-16 21:17 | User Profile

Worse is better, for sure. That's why Lieberman will be getting my vote. Sharpton would be even worse than Lieberman, but Sharpton's candidacy is a joke.

Eendracht Maakt Mag

2003-06-16 21:20 | User Profile

*Originally posted by MadScienceType@Jun 16 2003, 12:10 * **

Well, I might agree with you, except for the case studies of South Africa and Rhodesia. **

The circumstances in Rhodesia and South Africa were so radically different that they can hardly be compared to each other, much less the US.

There, the whites were already a minority

We are talking about minorities of different sizes here. In Rhodesia, whites were outnumbered 20 to 1 by Bantus and belonged to a single ethnic group. In South Africa, whites composed from 16 to 21 per cent of the population, depending on the time period. They were also concentrated in cities in such a manner that one could, theoretically go for months without seeing a black face.

** and far more cohesive than whites in this country,**

The whites in Rhodesia were indeed cohesive. The whites in South Africa however, were not. There were historical and political rifts, as well as considerable antagonism between various white groups in the country. There were the conservative Afrikaans-speaking Boers of the former Transvaal, Natal and Oranje Vrystaat. There were also large communities of mostly liberal Britons, mongrelized Cape Afrikaners, and "white" Jews, whose political influence overrode that of the boer conservatives.

** with a much less-developed ZOG agitprop infrastructure in place.**

There was a very powerful Jewish presence in apartheid-era South Africa. Jewish anti-racist activists like Nadine Gortimer played a large role in destroying white hegemony in that country.

** Yet, they still turned their country over to bush-monkeys**

Rhodesians did not turn over their country to the Bantus; au contraire, they fought a long and heroic war in order to preserve their way of life. Unfortunately, they lost because the odds were so unevenly stacked against them.

** in spite of the fact they knew better.**

I doubt that the average white South African knew what kind of mess he was getting into when he voted for black rule in the referrendum. You have to remmber that most whites' experience with blacks was limited to their maid or taxi drivers. There was also overhwelming global pressure to institute demockracy in SA, not to mention Jewish activism and political presence.

jeffersonian

2003-06-16 23:09 | User Profile

Of course, Al Sharpton won't get elected, but a strong campaign would force the DemonRats to embrace black nationalism in order to shore up their African flank and the Pubbies would be forced to throw raw meat to us white nationalist vultures just waiting for our chance to enflame the moronic white masses. And that would polarize things nicely, que no?

Absolutely right, primarily because hes an idiot but also because he scares most people with his racist rhetoric. Carol Mosley Braun would have as good a chance as Al.

Now an electable black man...hmmmm.... that would be Thomas Sowell or maybe Walter Williams. OOOPs both Republicans.

Maybe they should stick with Gore. :jest: :jest: :jest:

MadScienceType

2003-06-17 15:09 | User Profile

Roy and PS,

Thanks for your perspectives on SA and Rhodesia. I knew that Rhodesian had fought until they "ran out of f*cking bullets" as one bitter ex-RSAS trooper is supposed to have put it. Some have said Ian Smith stabbed them in the back, but I wouldn't venture a guess as I obviously am underinformed about the whole deal. With both countries I had assumed that Whites would naturally stick together in the face of such demographic bad news, but I had forgotten the factional infighting that Whites love to engage in. I'm sure the Boers and lefty Britons didn't get along too well! I guess that SA's really may not have known what they were getting into, given that they hadn't had the benefits of a half-century of "diversity" and "civil rights" experience to guide them on what was to come. Still, you'd think the antics of Mandela and the ANC would have given them a bit of a clue.

**They were also concentrated in cities in such a manner that one could, theoretically go for months without seeing a black face. **

The horror! :D

"white" Jews, whose political influence overrode that of the boer conservatives.

Didn't they suddenly discover that they "weren't white" after black rule was instituted?

There was a very powerful Jewish presence in apartheid-era South Africa. Jewish anti-racist activists like Nadine Gortimer played a large role in destroying white hegemony in that country.

I'll still wager that the influence wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is here.

Quite a few expatriate SA's in S. Cal. I wonder how they made it here with the problems that white immigrants have in general.

They probably bought their way in. If they're that rich, I would bet that is where the attitude of "I got mine, screw everyone else" came from, much like our own homegrown elites.

PS, did you live in SA or have contacts there? You seem to have a first-person perspective on the region.

Walter Yannis

2003-06-18 06:28 | User Profile

*Originally posted by Drakmal@Jun 15 2003, 07:19 * ** Exactly. The speed of descent is possibly the most key factor. **

Right. It's like the proverbial frog in the pot. Raise the temperature slowly enough, he won't notice that he's being boiled alive.

Same with us.

We need a good shock to the system, and the way things are going we might just get one. Iraq and Afghanistan are heaving beneath the Empire's feet, and this while they're talking of waging war on Aryan Iran and all the while leaving our borders wide open for terrorist infiltration.

One good shock to consumer confidence, and the Dow and maybe even real estate prices will drop to the basement.

It could happen sooner than any of us think. I personally believe that Election 2000 could have gotten ugly, had SCOTUS not issued its imperial edict and decided the thing for us. Shite. I'm still predicting 2016 as crunch year, as then the Baby Boom will be retired and the strains on Social Security will really be showing, the brown younger generation won't want to pay, there'll be a presidential election, and things could get ugly.

Anyway, I left my crystal ball at home and we have to deal with the unexpected. Il Ragno's right. Learn to shoot. I'd add that we should all have an escape route ready. I own a little place in the mountains where my neighbors all own guns and have big gardens.

Walter