← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Ruffin
Thread ID: 7436 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2003-06-17
2003-06-17 17:26 | User Profile
Bryant is usually a little too libertarian for my tastes. Not so in these comments. I'm more interested in opinions of his first point than of his second. ~ Ruffin
Two Comments on the Revolution
Comment #1 I think that the next American revolution will be started, not by an organized campaign or group, but rather by a few widely- separated individuals who have dissented from the establishment line or who have been pushed to the wall by establishment corruption or arrogance, and who decide that it is better to risk their lives putting a few bullets in their tormenters than by going to prison where they would be unendingly sodomized by negroes. Even if they aren't avidly pro-white, pro- Constitution or pro-freedom, the prospect of prison rape by a procession of sweaty, lustful, sewer-loving animaloids will, I believe, motivate men to stand and fight to the death -- providing, of course, that the word gets out on what a man's fate will be once he hears that midnight knock on the door. The revolution will happen, not because a few widely-separated individuals can sustain it, but rather because they will function as a catalyst to show other men what can be done -- and indeed MUST be done -- not merely to keep from ending up on the business end of a negro's love- skewer, but to sate the anger which grows with each abuse that the establishment wreaks against the people. The polls may not change much as awareness spreads about negro and hispanic crime, Jewish cultural and political subversion, man-hating feminism, the lies of 911, the baselessness of the Iraq war, the suppression of natural health remedies, the fostering of corporate corruption, the shredding of the Constitution, the importation of Turd-World garbage, the destruction of Western civilization, and an enormous number of other scandals and abuses; but just as each piles yet another straw or two or three upon the camel's back, there will arrive a time at which the suppressed anger at these abuses can no longer be held in check; and when this time arrives, the upheaval may -- and probably will -- be cataclysmic. It will of course be the disparate -- and desperate -- individuals who fire the first shot; but the shock wave radiating from their actions which washes over the people who have been following or experiencing the establishment's abuses will sweep the revolution along like a tsunami. The event can be likened to a chemical reaction which, when the beaker contains a supersaturated solution of hot blood and hormones, needs only a small trigger event to precipitate a violent explosion. It will not be organized, tho it may become so; but it will not likely succeed unless it remains disorganized after the fashion of guerrilla warfare, because organized opposition can be confronted or infiltrated, while opposition which is disorganized -- at least in terms of having no central direction or chain of command, but organized only in the sense of having a devotion to freedom and the Constitutional vision of our Founders -- cannot be.
Comment #2 I think that if America were religious, we would not have the problem which we now have with the assault on our freedoms. I say this because religion is the only way people can see that their lives possess meaning in the context of times past and times to be. It is the only thing that keeps us from being mere creatures of the present, whose interest is confined to bodily pleasures and 'peace in our time'. What is more, it is the lack of religion more than anything else that has brought about the precipitous decline of the white race -- that fons et origo of Western civilization -- because, by being disconnected from both past and future, people have ceased to see the point of having children and continuing their own genetic line.
But if religion is important, a false religion will not fill the bill; for it is precisely because Christianity is a false religion -- false, that is, in being based on unscientific principles -- that has led to its slow but inevitable decline. The only true religion is a religion based on fact, and the only religious facts we now possess are the facts of the paranormal, an area whose investigation was only begun about a century and a half ago, and which is still not recognized by the scientific establishment as a legitimate area of inquiry. But even without the support of establishment science, there are enuf facts to make plain that what may, for lack of better name, be called the spiritual world, is real, and in fact provides evidence -- if imperfect -- that there is survival of the human personality after death. While we would be foolish to take Pascal's famous 'leap of faith' to believe in a Christian god or some other manmade construct, we do not need a leap of faith to appreciate the facts which stand accumulating in front of us if only we would examine them. Thus while we may not be able to say for sure if there is 'heaven', we can say with some probability that our demise need not imply the demise of our 'selves'; and if we can say this with some unmisplaced confidence, then we see clearly that there is a continuity between ourselves and generations both past and future. And I, for one, do not wish to risk shaming myself in front of those generations.
[url=http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-BirdmansWeeklyLetter.html]http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-...eklyLetter.html[/url]
2003-06-17 17:54 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 17 2003, 12:26 * While we would be foolish to take Pascal's famous 'leap of faith' to believe in a Christian god or some other manmade construct...*
As we know, Christianity is the only historical phenomenon which, in spite of the historical, indeed precisely by means of the historical, has wanted to be the point of departure for the individual's eternal consciousness, has wanted to interest him otherwise than merely historically, has wanted to base his blessedness on his relation to something purely historical. No philosophy, no mythology, no historical knowledge has had that idea, of which it may then be saidââ¬âis that a recommendation or the opposite?ââ¬âthat it did not arise in the heart of any man.** - Soren Kierkegaard
2003-06-17 18:00 | User Profile
[url=http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Intro/Intro-Correspondents.html]http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Intro/Intr...espondents.html[/url]
John's my man!
2003-06-17 18:23 | User Profile
Great commentary. I enjoyed my quick browse of Bryant's website. Thanks for the link!
2003-06-17 22:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 17 2003, 13:26 * *The only true religion is a religion based on fact, and the only religious facts we now possess are the facts of the paranormal, an area whose investigation was only begun about a century and a half ago, and which is still not recognized by the scientific establishment as a legitimate area of inquiry. But even without the support of establishment science, there are enuf facts to make plain that what may, for lack of better name, be called the spiritual world, is real, and in fact provides evidence -- if imperfect -- that there is survival of the human personality after death. **
I wonder what "facts" it is he is specifically referring to? I'm agnostic on all matters of this nature, but I find it peculiar that he would devalue Christianity while embracing the paranormal. I guess I'll have to explore his website further to see what "evidence" he presents for his acceptance of the paranormal and embrace of some spiritual world while rejecting organized religion.
2003-06-17 22:44 | User Profile
Yeah damian, Bryant's a little Rense-like at times. I chalk it up to his libertarian streak. What was the classification NN assigned to libertarians?
Critiques of point #1 anybody?
2003-06-17 22:46 | User Profile
Good post. I tend to agree with Yggdrasil's assessment -- that once one million or more White men decide that an all White nation is a necessity worth dying for, it's over with for the current regime.
Let's keep working to make it happen.
2003-06-18 05:06 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]Making Love To Non-Whites[/SIZE]
[color=blue]"Yeah damian, Bryant's a little Rense-like at times. I chalk it up to his libertarian streak."[/color]
John "Birdman" Bryant revealed not long ago that he has no problem with sexual relations between whites and non-whites, so I would assume this would include Jews as well.
Tom
2003-06-18 05:16 | User Profile
The post by Tom Rennick above almost proves that he is a troll. After all, why the hell would he care about Bryant/Jews????? C'mon, Rennster. Game's up.
2003-06-18 09:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Franco@Jun 18 2003, 01:16 * ** C'mon, Rennster. Game's up.*
Keep the pressure on him Franco, I think he's about to break. :lol:
2003-06-22 17:17 | User Profile
Damian said: > [color=blue]"Keep the pressure on him Franco, I think he's about to break." [/color]
A weenie like Franco couldn't break a wet noodle.
2003-06-22 17:48 | User Profile
Tom Rennick> John "[color=red]Birdbrain[/color]" Bryant revealed not long ago that he has no problem with sexual relations between whites and non-whites, so I would assume this would include Jews as well.
Tom**
Bryant is an idiot who talks tough, but gets worms in his gut when the time comes to confront harsh reality. He is an arrogant liar who must live on pigeon sh*t.
2003-06-22 18:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Jun 22 2003, 11:48 * ** Tom Rennick> John "[color=red]Birdbrain[/color]*" Bryant revealed not long ago that he has no problem with sexual relations between whites and non-whites, so I would assume this would include Jews as well.
Tom**
Bryant is an idiot who talks tough, but gets worms in his gut when the time comes to confront harsh reality. He is an arrogant liar who must live on pigeon sh*t. **
And Polichinello is [color=yellow][SIZE=3]YELLOW[/color][/SIZE].
Any thoughts on Bryant's theory about how revolution might occur?
2003-06-23 17:21 | User Profile
Ruffin I have no real thoughts on how revolution might occur if they originated with this idiot. Perhaps he will poison pigeons in such a manner their droppings will spread disease. Has anybody seen, heard, or read my adversary [color=yellow][SIZE=3]Yellow[/color][/SIZE] Polichinello?
2003-06-23 19:44 | User Profile
Ed, Bryant is a genius, and has the means of proving it.
He is a bit eccentric, but that's part of the high IQ. I have a son and a daughter the same way.
2003-06-24 10:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ed Toner@Jun 23 2003, 13:44 * *Ed, Bryant is a genius, and has the means of proving it.
He is a bit eccentric, but that's part of the high IQ.**
His site is a valuable resource but I question the manââ¬â¢s character. 'Eccentricities' are of no relevance but his attitude on what he terms ââ¬Ëkiddie pornââ¬â¢ and child sex crosses the eccentricity town boundary into perversityville.
For the record I have never seen John state he's personally interested in such filth but his dismissal of opposition to it as mere prudery is disturbing.
2003-06-24 15:10 | User Profile
Franco said: > [color=red]"The post by Tom Rennick above almost proves that he is a troll. After all, why the hell would he care about Bryant/Jews?????" [/color]
A better question is this: Why would you give John Bryant a "free pass" on having sex with Jews, when you denounce other whites (including me) merely for making the odd reference to them that isn't automatically disfavorable?
In other words, if you hate Jews as much as you seem to, then why not stick to your principles and denounce Bryant for the semi-Jew-lover that he is.
Tom
2003-06-24 15:31 | User Profile
...why not stick to your principles and denounce Bryant...
Hey Rennidiot,
What's Franco's famous principle here? Naming the Jew? I think so.
Does Bryant name the Jew? Yes, I believe he does.
So is there substance to your complaint? Apparently not.
At least rban was amusing.
2003-06-24 16:16 | User Profile
**Ed Toner ** (Posted on Jun 23 2003, 20:44)
**Ed, Bryant is a genius, and has the means of proving it.
He is a bit eccentric, but that's part of the high IQ. I have a son and a daughter the same way.**
I believe that Bryant at best is an idiot-savant. In minor harmless circumstances he appears righteous and indignant, but when crunch time comes he will vomit and run.
[color=blue]Letter to Birdbrain Bryant on Jews & American Wars, Birdbrain's Delusions or Willful Lying[/color] edward gibbon Posted: Jun 10 2002, 19:24
**Birdbrain Bryant:
I have sent polite messages asking you to debate. You have refused to respond. By this message that I will post on the Original Dissent Forum I am challenging you to a public debate about the role of Jews in American wars. I started a new thread for this debate. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=12&t=1611]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=12&t=1611[/url]
[In this forum is all the relevant material. [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...96f2bba6642186e]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...96f2bba6642186e[/url] This was started by Ed Toner and contains references to your claim to be a member of MENSA. If so, then you should have no problems reading what I have written and computing the appropriate numbers and statistics. I have copied your previous responses and ask you to read them once again.]
How you could conclude that Jews have not, repeat not, fought in American wars in appropriate numbers to their population leaves me incredulous. I must assume you are not that stupid, but are afraid to accept the consequences of informing Jews that they have fled American wars ââ¬â to include the one with Hitlerââ¬â¢s Germany. As you must realize, you are not alone. Many profess to be fearless, but quail when time comes to confront somebody who will fight back.
At this moment the United States is being stampeded by powerful media and financial forces towards fighting in the Middle East, not for the benefit of the United States, but on behalf of Israel. I find this to be absolutely dishonest and dishonorable as many of these creatures doing most of the advocacy ran when asked to bear arms. Perhaps you are not as offended as I am. But now you have your chance to vent your opinions.**
2003-06-24 16:52 | User Profile
With respect to Bryant I will say that some of his articles are excellent and quite pleasent to read. A to being a genius it seems that much more is needed to be considered such then simple MENSA membership. I joined MENSA back about 12 years ago and left after about a year because it was filled with ego maniacs that by enlarge had nothing to say. Having a high IQ does not relate to crtical thinking ablities, it does not mean one is more likely to be well read, less prone to moral coruption or any more capable of orginal, valid and inventive thought (which to me is what true genius is about) and it certainly does not mean one has common sense.
Bryant is morally sickening which in and of itself means that I would not endorse him in a blanket fashion. Of course Much is wrong with libertarianism from the stand point of Eurocentirsm which greatly reduces the utility of his thinking to those wishing to oppose the current order.
2003-06-25 04:09 | User Profile
Mr. Ruffin said: > [color=red]"Hey Rennidiot, What's Franco's famous principle here? Naming the Jew? I think so. Does Bryant name the Jew? Yes, I believe he does. So is there substance to your complaint? Apparently not."[/color]
Mr. Ruffin: The Birdman does indeed name "some" Jews as being trouble-makers. Even so, he also has claimed friendships with Jews, that it's okay to have sex with non-whites, and so on. I mean, what are we to make of this?
But, I see my words are powerless to convince you. If so, read Triskelion's comments on the Birdman, just prior to this post. He finds him "morally sickening". Does Trikskelion have reasons for believing so? Why not ask him.
Anyway, do some DEEP research on the Birdman, and maybe you'll see what I mean.
Tom
2003-06-25 13:58 | User Profile
I'm familiar with Bryant and his ideas, as I mentioned at the beginning of this topic.
Any thoughts on his theory of revolution?
2003-06-25 17:53 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 25 2003, 09:58 * ** I'm familiar with Bryant and his ideas, as I mentioned at the beginning of this topic.
Any thoughts on his theory of revolution? **
If and when there is a "revolution", I think it will happen the same way our cultural shifts (in the U.S.) were accomplished in the 20th century. By that I mean slowly through the takeover of cultural institutions, the spread of insidious and irresistible ideas. Sure the US is becoming a police state, but the cultural marxists in this country have gained their positions essentially without firing a shot. At this point, I don't think the US populace is ready to accept violent revolution kicked off by disparate firebrands. Despite all the talk of danger from the Muslim population, for instance, and despite all the Freeper-style rhetoric being Limbaughed around the country, no movement has arisen to back up all the anti-Arab tough talk. The public has been inevitably enervated by the multiculturalism and Talmudic influences with which we are inundated; and even the perceived threat of major cities being roasted didn't arouse them to violence. If these CM influences can be countered, it will have to be through ideas circulated in the same way the opposing ideology came to be put in place, and through recapturing the churches and universities. Grassroots activism can and will work, as triskelion has alluded to in some of his posts. The only outcome to a violent, murderous revolution will be more of the same. Ideas that capture and re-energize the national awareness is the only answer.
We have to win the war of ideas, although this means fighting against a compromised media and political system. Any revolution attained through violent means will encounter an eventual backlash- the American Revolution (1776) is the only violent revolution that succeeded without immediately lapsing into terror and oppression (I did say immediately). If there is any one idea that could be used as a central theme around which to rally, "Kill your Televitz" might be the best one to with which to start. If media, especially television, can't be turned in the favor of the angels then alternative outlets should be explored and TV totally ignored.
All of that said, we're confronted with the difficulty of placing all blacks in the nation on barges to Liberia without encountering violent resistance, and trucking millions of Meztizo's back over our Southern borders without stirring the revenge of Aztlan. It's a conundrum.
Obligatory shot at "Birdman": He sounds like a somewhat intelligent and totally amoral blowhard whose main talent is self-promotion. At least he's not pushing the frequent abuse of animal tranquilizers as a means to expanding consciousness. Just my opinion.
Ruffin gets ten points for patience.
2003-06-26 03:08 | User Profile
Thanks for your considered response, weisbrot (and for the ten points).
I've pondered this for decades and I don't see any signs of an eventual white awakening (in America) that I haven't seen turn to dust in the past. When whites believe they have NOTHING left to lose and NOWHERE to go, then maybe. Our generous acreage will work against us in the long run, since white flight, while buying time, will parallel an increase in the brown population. Maybe then, as we drown in a brown revolution, a white backlash may occur?
2003-06-26 06:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 26 2003, 03:08 * ** Maybe then,* as we drown in a brown revolution, a white backlash may occur? **
Right now I'd bet against. Most whites will be so brainwashed by then they'll think it's patriotic to keep the Rio Grande unguarded and our industries in China.
Birdman's main point is right but we'll be down to remnants before the shooting starts. Local white warlords might hold parts of the Dakotas and Ozarks when Washington collapses. Other remote places. That's about it.
Whites never learned group loyalty very well. It's catching up to us.
2003-06-26 06:12 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jun 26 2003, 03:08 * ** Thanks for your considered response, weisbrot (and for the ten points).
I've pondered this for decades and I don't see any signs of an eventual white awakening (in America) that I haven't seen turn to dust in the past. When whites believe they have NOTHING left to lose and NOWHERE to go, then maybe. Our generous acreage will work against us in the long run, since white flight, while buying time, will parallel an increase in the brown population. Maybe then, as we drown in a brown revolution, a white backlash may occur? **
That is my hope.
The way the wars and the economy are going, maybe it will happen sooner rather than later.
Maybe.
Walter
2003-06-26 19:30 | User Profile
It will of course be the disparate -- and desperate -- individuals who fire the first shot; but the shock wave radiating from their actions which washes over the people who have been following or experiencing the establishment's abuses will sweep the revolution along like a tsunami. It will not be organized, tho it may become so; but it will not likely succeed unless it remains disorganized after the fashion of guerrilla warfare, because organized opposition can be confronted or infiltrated, while opposition which is disorganized -- at least in terms of having no central direction or chain of command, but organized only in the sense of having a devotion to freedom and the Constitutional vision of our Founders -- cannot be**. **
This part of his rant is 100% right on. Having less to do with Jew co-option of American life [though of course this is the root cause of our miseries] than the nature of the modern high-tech State. No formal, organized Opposition to the reigning Empire can hope to match or exceed the Empire in gadgetry, mass propaganda or force of numbers. The Jews who toppled the Old America by Gramscian subterfuge and infiltration have seen to it that no such 'changing the System from within' can ever be replicated....the Tom Paines of our time are Alex Linders who take more flak from the Old Right than they do from the Left [which assiduously ignores them since - now that Media is not only Politics but Reality itself - if it ain't on tv, it never happened]. Forget 'working inside the System'.
In the end, America can only be liberated by methods we have long found repugnant, cribbing notes from leftist revolutionaries like Castro, Sandino and even Mao. Struggles this cataclysmic will never be seriously engaged, let alone won, by people not willing to kill and to die if need be. Technological societies are soft-underbelly societies that cannot be overthrown by nearly-as-technological opposition but by primitivism. Show me people who can survive without electricity and modern medicine and then see who remains standing six months after all the lights go out.
The hot button issue of Christianity....should that day ever come to pass....will become a club used by Jews to cow the populace into docility. Just as Christianity was the club of choice to thrash us into accepting and even supporting civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and a million Holocaust apologies. There is, after all, only one sure way to learn if Christianity (or any religious doctrine) is 'correct'....but nations are built by people who would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
2003-06-26 22:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 26 2003, 15:30 * The Jews who toppled the Old America by Gramscian subterfuge and infiltration have seen to it that no such 'changing the System from within' can ever be replicated....the Tom Paines of our time are Alex Linders who take more flak from the Old Right than they do from the Left [which assiduously ignores them since - now that Media is not only Politics but Reality itself - if it ain't on tv, it never happened*]. Forget 'working inside the System'.
In the end, America can only be liberated by methods we have long found repugnant, cribbing notes from leftist revolutionaries like Castro, Sandino and even Mao. Struggles this cataclysmic will never be seriously engaged, let alone won, by people not willing to kill and to die if need be. Technological societies are soft-underbelly societies that cannot be overthrown by nearly-as-technological opposition but by primitivism. Show me people who can survive without electricity and modern medicine and then see who remains standing six months after all the lights go out.**
Very good points. Winning change through the existing political system is no longer possible. Change through the electoral process isn't the answer.
But if Alex Linder is the "Tom Paine" of our time, how will his influence survive when the lights go out? I'm not sure where you're going with that idea, although the survivalist aspect of the primitivism approach has its appeal. Yet, how many Americans- paleo, nationalist and other friendlies- could we honestly expect to be standing after six months of a 1700's lifestyle? Less than some would assume, I'm betting. I'll step up and admit that with a family to support, I would find the prospect of participating in a revolution while learning how to field dress a whitetail somewhat daunting.
The hot button issue of Christianity....should that day ever come to pass....will become a club used by Jews to cow the populace into docility. Just as Christianity was the club of choice to thrash us into accepting and even supporting civil rights, gay rights, affirmative action and a million Holocaust apologies.
This doesn't have to be so. And I would disagree that Christianity was the weapon of choice used by the Levantines, while admitting that modern Christianity has been polluted, adulterated and subverted through its acquiesence to the Tikkunist orientation.
2003-06-26 23:40 | User Profile
Clarifications:
...the Tom Paines of our time are Alex Linders....
Note the usage. Paines; Linders. Meaning the truth-speaking outsiders - or gadflies to the System - are now further out there - frozen out of the mainstream - and more outlawed than at any other time in our history. Thought, debate and even contentiousness is now a closed union shop in America: no union card, no acknowledgment that you're even saying anything. If you find an audience regardless, criminalization (of speaking and hearing unapproved thought) will likely follow in time. There are actually people - on the Paleo Right! - who think David Duke is doing hard time because he's a "crook". Or Zundel is in bureaucratic purgatory because he's an "illegal alien".
Speaking of Zundel, has anybody ever read B Traven's THE DEATH SHIP?
Christianity....will become a club used by Jews....
This doesn't speak to the faith but to the twisters of the faith. Our Penal Codes were once clearly-written and -understood, but clever Jews have used the interpretive wiggle-room that was always in there to subvert the will of the American majority. So with the Christian faith. There is such a thing as Judeo-Christianity, you see....but it stops dead midway through the Old Testament. It is the New Testament which brought the world the ideals of mercy, forgiveness and redemption. Yet every ruinous social change brought about by Jews to American life has been smoothed over by those same Jews using New Testament theology as a guilt-truncheon against the Christian majority....even though no Jew on Earth either believes in, or shares values with, anything in the New Testament.
It seems there are two schools of 'thought' here: the vast herd believes "Judeo-Christianity" as an all-purpose truth....a small dissenting group rejecyts the idea of "Judeo-Christianity" altogether. The truth is that there is some common ground - that stops on a dime long before the introduction of precisely those elements which define Christianity. And that those elements, and that divergence, render the idea of "Judeo-Christianity" as anything more than a curious historical footnote dangerously self-deluding. Can't recall the last time gentile attorneys forced broad social change in Israel that weakened and demoralized the Jewish majority under the aegis of our long Judeo-Christian traditions. Can you?