President for Life.

[Hirudinea]

Just saw this on this on the internet, thought you Yanks might be interested...

At a press briefing this morning that touched on issues like the White House's extrajudicial wiretapping program and torture policies, the president was asked a question about Vladimir Putin's plan to hold on to power when his term as Russian president runs out.

Reporter: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said recently that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there ...

Bush: I've been planning that myself.


Ah well, democracy is overrated anyway. ;)

Heres the link in case your interested... http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/bush-quip-might.html

[Vitalis]

I kind of like Vladimir Putin, he really pisses off the Bush regime, and that must be a good thing. He also keeps the U.S. in check in the U.N.

Hopefully he will help provide Iran with some advanced weapons when the U.S. declares war on them.

The U.S. is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic anyway, so I don't see how they have the right to "spread" democracy when we don't even have one.

[Alexires]

The situation in the US has been looking that way for a while anyway. What other reason would the president have for enacting things like the PATRIOT Act if he wasn't going to be around to use it much. Either he is

a) Working for someone elses agenda (Israel?) or
b) He is setting up for Jeb or
c) He is planning to remain in power for a long time yet.

I wouldn't be suprised if close to the presidental election some kind of situation occurs (Operation Northwoods style) that allows him to declair a state of Martial Law.

But then again, I can't see how he would hope to maintain power. The populace isn't pacified enough to swallow that, even with sugar. I would be thinking that option b (Jeb) is the way things are going, and that is when the populace will be placated, after 8 years of Billary's reign.

[megalomania]

I heard the quote on NPR Wednesday, Bush jokingly said he has thought about it, but he will step down when his term ends. He also said Putin is wily, that has got to be the funniest thing a world leader has said about another. That ranks right up there with Regan's "we begin bombing in five minutes" quip about the Soviet Union.

We debated the same thing on The Forum about Clinton not stepping down near the end of his term, that there would be some crisis and he would have an excuse to keep Bush from taking over.

[MorrisOK]

I don't think there is any way that ANY US President could manage to stay on after his/her term without a declaration of Martial Law at least.

That being said, the actions of a certain administration since day one has been very alarming. I can easily see why people think that this Presidency could become a dictatorship, but I don't think it will happen, at least with this President.

Things have been heading in this direction for a long time. I see people repeatedly blaming President Bush for the way things are now, but he is just another in a long line of Presidents who have contributed to the main agenda.(whatever that may be) Some of you might remember that some of the most devastating "us vs. them" type events happened during the Clinton administration.

The ballots are all electronic now, and easily rigged. And even if they weren't, we still have the Electoral College. Why would anyone take such a huge PR risk as declaring someone dictator, when they can simply place whatever person they want into the Presidency?

President Bush permanent Dictator? Sounds kinda like Y2K to me, something for all the "conspiracy theorists" to worry about and keep them distracted from the real threat.

Just my $0.2

[nbk2000]

How about the UN security concil being asked to 'help' with maintaining 'security' after another 9/11 event, with foreign troops 'pacifying' the american population at the behest of socialist president Billary?

[Kaydon]

Don't quote whole posts!

Things have been wrong since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

[Rbick]

Lets start a pool, of money that is, on bets that there is no way in HELL that Bush is going to try and stay around after his term. I don't understand why everyone has painted such a criminalistic picture of Bush, especially when many people only hear what they want to hear and ignore any other information. Sure he could have done better, but the detriment brought on by Bill Clinton could be considered as bad if not worse.

If I recall correctly, he cheated on his wife and lied about it to an entire PLANET, gave presidential pardons to several known criminals, cut military spending (ALOT, talk to anyone in the military about that time period, it sucked), and apparently let bin Laden slip through his fingers despite another countries attempt to turn him over to the U.S.

So in my opinion, Bush is not some mastermind criminal trying to take over the world, and I'll bet my left nut nothing is going to stop the next presidential election. You Americans in here shouldn't be worried about him as much as you should be preparing for gun control and complete control of chemicals when Hilary Clinton steps in...

[LibertyOrDeath]

Rbick, Clinton was indeed awful, and I hated his guts. But lying about cheating on your wife isn't nearly as bad as lying to drum up support for a completely unnecessary war. And no, Bush didn't merely make a mistake; he deliberately and repeatedly lied, from threatening the US with a "mushroom cloud" to implying that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. It was clear that Bush was lying even before the invasion because of the way he and the Zionist Jews in his administration kept on pushing the war even after each piece of phony evidence was debunked (aluminum tubes, forged documents regarding Nigerian uranium, etc.).

The reason for all the "mistaken" intelligence was because AIPAC-affiliated Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith had set up a special system to cherrypick intelligence and bypass the analysts who would normally examine it. Read about the "Office of Special Plans" at the Pentagon -- it makes the picture very clear.

West Point Grads Against The War has preserved the lie-filled presentation that Bush had his house nigger Colin Powell present to the UN. It's worth another look:

http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/powellpresentation_to_the_un.htm

Bush and the neocons in the government and the media are still lying in an attempt to drum up support for an attack on Iran. He and his administration are the most Israeli-centric this country has ever seen, and they are willing to spare no expense in blood or money to ensure Israeli dominance in the Middle East. Iran hasn't invaded another country in well over a hundred years and has stated that they won't attack anyone now unless they are attacked first; yet the Israel-firsters are saying Ahmadinejad is the "new Hitler." Since Jews are the Master Race, it's only fitting that US taxpayers and soldiers lose their money, limbs, and lives on behalf of Israel.

Domestically, Bush has also stomped on the Constitution at least as much as Clinton did, albeit in different ways. Clinton was more anti-gun, but Bush wants to turn the US into a surveillance state. Remember "Total Information Awareness"? And then we have this business about kidnapping US citizens like Padilla, holding them without trial for as long as possible, and probably torturing them as well. Don't think they won't try to do that to "terrorists" like you or me one day.

In short: Both Bush and Clinton have been disastrous, but I think Bush is clearly the more treasonous. Nevertheless, I don't think even he would refuse to step down after his term expires.

As for the next president, Giuliani would be just as bad as Hillary, and none of the others are much better -- with the exception of Ron Paul, who is this country's last hope for a peaceful return to some semblance of freedom.

[Rbick]

As for the next president, Giuliani would be just as bad as Hillary, and none of the others are much better -- with the exception of Ron Paul, who is this country's last hope for a peaceful return to some semblance of freedom.

Amen to that. We are pretty much screwed either way. I'm glad someone else has also seen how negative Clinton's 8 year reign of terror was on the country as a whole. I'll go ahead and agree with you that both Presidents have been detrimental to our country in equal but different ways.

I'm not too clear on the view of the Jews being behind much of this. Perhaps more information would enlighten me, as I'm always open to other opinions :)

As for weapons in Iraq, Saddam did in fact have as many as 3 nuclear warheads sold to him by "certain" countries, give or take a few. They weren't constructed there, but were already fully functional, just without a system of delivery. How do I know? Well lets just say I "may" have been there and "might" have seen something :D. Evidence of the nuclear weapons was actually open to the public, although never pronounced as true. This is due both to security and media reasons, as well as international relations. All of the info is unclassified (although the gov't still won't talk too much about their existance), albeit information regarding the origin of the warheads (Anyone who had seen one would know the markings were a dead give away). Until it is released to the public, if ever, it is open to speculation and guess work. The government will never aknowledge it for sure until then. In one of my posts, I put up several links going to sites discussing this, it is somewhere in the Issues and Opinions section. I'm not motivated enough to go find it though, nor do I have the time right now...

So if you choose to believe what I say, or at least consider it, these were the choices:

Let Saddam keep the war heads and see what happens
or
Get in there and take them out...

What would you pick had you been president of the U.S.?

[LibertyOrDeath]

Amen to that. We are pretty much screwed either way. I'm glad someone else has also seen how negative Clinton's 8 year reign of terror was on the country as a whole. I'll go ahead and agree with you that both Presidents have been detrimental to our country in equal but different ways.I'm glad we see eye to eye on this, as I think it's the most important issue here. Far too many Americans are buying into the "lesser of two evils" approach, and the result is that we keep getting more and more evil sent our way.

I think of it like a crowd of people walking toward a cliff -- if they take enough steps, they fall to their deaths. Every four years, these people vote on whether they'll take 10 steps or 8 steps toward the cliff. One way might take slightly longer than the other, but they're doomed either way.

I'm not too clear on the view of the Jews being behind much of this. Perhaps more information would enlighten me, as I'm always open to other opinions :)Well, first I want to clarify that it's not all Jews or even most Jews who were behind this; however, the key players in the picture were Jews with known strong loyalties to Israel and close ties to the Israel lobby. Christian Zionists (such as Bush and Cheney themselves) also played a key role.

Israeli influence on the US government is a subject I've been following for over a decade. I've read countless news articles and books on the subject, and I could probably write a book on it myself. But here are some links to get you started if you want to pursue the subject:

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

An example of a neocon article published prior to the Iraq invasion:
http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp141-xs.html

From an Israeli newspaper:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

The spies who pushed for war:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Israel Shares Blame on Iraq Intelligence, Report Says:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36694-2003Dec4?language=printer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_special_plans

Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement (by a psychology professor who studies ethnic issues):
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm

As for weapons in Iraq, Saddam did in fact have as many as 3 nuclear warheads sold to him by "certain" countries, give or take a few. They weren't constructed there, but were already fully functional, just without a system of delivery. How do I know? Well lets just say I "may" have been there and "might" have seen something :D. Evidence of the nuclear weapons was actually open to the public, although never pronounced as true. This is due both to security and media reasons, as well as international relations. All of the info is unclassified (although the gov't still won't talk too much about their existance), albeit information regarding the origin of the warheads (Anyone who had seen one would know the markings were a dead give away). Until it is released to the public, if ever, it is open to speculation and guess work. The government will never aknowledge it for sure until then. In one of my posts, I put up several links going to sites discussing this, it is somewhere in the Issues and Opinions section. I'm not motivated enough to go find it though, nor do I have the time right now...I don't think you're lying, but I have my doubts about whether the weapons you saw were actually nukes. Or perhaps the US government was considering planting some WMDs after the invasion (which you saw), then decided against it? I'm not sure. But I can't think of any good reason why Bush et al. would not vindicate themselves by demonstrating that Saddam did, in fact, have those weapons. In particular, I can't imagine why Bush would not be able to tell the public what you're telling me, since it's not classified.

In any case, intelligence was still clearly manipulated, as quite a few intelligence analysts even resigned in protest of that prior to the Iraq invasion. This was covered in the news, though I don't have links handy. And the points made earlier regarding the forged uranium documents, etc., still apply.

So if you choose to believe what I say, or at least consider it, these were the choices:

Let Saddam keep the war heads and see what happens
or
Get in there and take them out...

What would you pick had you been president of the U.S.?
If Saddam really did have nukes and I were president, then I would let him keep the warheads. If Israel has the right to keep nukes -- or, for that matter, the US -- then I see no reason why Iraq shouldn't. I don't believe it should be the job of the US to protect Israel or police the world; we should simply watch our borders, airspace, and ports extremely carefully while ceasing to meddle in other countries' affairs. That would be a lot less expensive than maintaining dominance over the world, and it would keep us from making all these enemies in the first place.

[NoltaiR]

If Hillary or Obama wins.. I'm moving to Canada

[Kaydon]

Canada is much too close, I'm prepared to move to Australia. It seems like a better version of America, don't we have a few Aussies in the house? Care to message me with any details?

Saddam didn't have anything, I've heard from many people who have "been there" but I've seen no evidence, and no evidence means no existence.

If they were nuclear weapons, a $10 spot says the U.S. planted them there in order to convince stupid American's that our cause is just.

[nbk2000]

Australia is Britain south of the equator. In other words, a socialist nanny-state nightmare.

www.prisonplanet.com

Prison planet...I think that says it all. NOWHERE to run.

[Kaydon]

I love Alex Jones. Did you watch "Terrorstorm?" Good stuff.

You're probably right, there isn't anywhere to hide... Except maybe deep in the Alaskan wilderness or something, the Amazon.

[Rbick]

If they were nuclear weapons, a $10 spot says the U.S. planted them there in order to convince stupid American's that our cause is just.

You think I took pictures and am posting them on the internet? You don't having any proof he didn't have them either, you are just siding with the opinion you agree with most. Regardless if they were "real" or "planted", which I doubt, I think the fact Saddam was torturing and starving his own people and strongly opposed to the United States even existing was enough reason to do what we did.

Saddam didn't have anything

You seem so sure of yourself... Would you take the side of people who actually were there or someone who gets all their information through the media and supposedly reliable sources? The government is reluctant to reveal the findings of these weapons due to where the came from. International relationships are far more expensive than proving that he actually had them to the general public. Can you say WW III?

All this doesn't mean I'm siding with our government. They are kind of pissing me off right now :mad:. But its hard to fight facts, especially when you were part of it.

[nbk2000]

Saying "I know the facts!" doesn't do you any good if you have no proof that you are willing to share.

Without proof, it's hearsay, and arguing otherwise is only going to piss people off, like me.

Opinions are one thing, but stating something as fact requires proof.

[Rbick]

Apologies, I tend to be defensive when it comes to this. They're not facts, these are opinions of mine and whoever wants to disagree can. I'm always open to other opinions :)

[Charles Owlen Picket]

The thing that always bothered me about the WMD issue in Iraq is that it WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EASY TO PLANT THEM..... So much depended on finding those things (politically, in terms of world opinion, etc) and intelligence agencies are known to have gone to great lengths in the past for just such "capital"....why did the bush administration simply say; "We couldn't find shit out there"?

That level of "public opinion suicide" is difficult to conceive of. There seemed to be little reason for being "honest", if that's what the administration really did.

[nbk2000]

IF there actually were working nukes there, and the bush regime didn't parade them around, that means they were more concerned about the reaction of the people who supplied the warheads (knowingly or not) than they were about the possible domestic backlash.

Imagine if the nukes turned out to be isreali! Stolen, or sold by a traitor, imagine the stink if that was found out!

Or russian (oil) or chinese (wal-mart) or nork (:eek:! )

[ccw8076]

If the nukes were Israeli, then they would stand a good chance of being stolen from America. Oh for the days when the excuse of Beating the Communists would solve our problems. But I don't think that WMD's were really the reason.

John Stewart, for all his failings, did a report recently about how the U.S. has been in bed with the middle east since Reagan's Era. Basically ever since the Iran-Contra affair, we have been appeasing middle eastern nations for appeasing nations in the middle east that we have pissed off. For example we appeased Saddam for years through money and weapons because we protected Kuwait.
Now this.
Makes a lot of sense doesn't it. :confused:

[Rbick]

Like I said
The government is reluctant to reveal the findings of these weapons due to where the came from. International relationships are far more expensive than proving that he actually had them to the general public.

I think we are on to something...

[Kaydon]

Like I said


I think we are on to something...

That's merely a smoke shield. Some way to make a justification.

[ccw8076]

A good example of this principle recently is the fact the President Bush would not condemn Turkey's brutal action against it's own people during World War one; according to a measure which congress passed labeling turkey's actions as genocide and terrorist.

Why you might ask, why would a man with no connection to turkey refuse to condemn the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Well bush has shown his hand
when he vetoed health care for SICK CHILDREN to appease his political supporters, because they thought that it was
"Socialized Medicine". This is really no different.

The official reason for bushes response is that he does not see it as a terrorist action, and he doesn't believe in retroactively condemning anybody. HA.

The real reason is that turkey is one of the last dedicated members of the "coalition of the willing". And bush is obviously willing to bend over ;)in order to keep that false image alive.

[Hirudinea]

The thing that always bothered me about the WMD issue in Iraq is that it WOULD HAVE BEEN SO EASY TO PLANT THEM..... So much depended on finding those things (politically, in terms of world opinion, etc) and intelligence agencies are known to have gone to great lengths in the past for just such "capital"....why did the bush administration simply say; "We couldn't find shit out there"?

Its very simple, the backlash from find nothing, is nothing (forgotten in a couple of weeks), but the backlash from planting WMDs would make the administration look like a bunch of criminals, so say they have nukes, invade and then say "Opps, looks like we screwed up, but we're in Baghdad now, whacha gonna do?" :cool: Poiticians aren't that stupid.

Why you might ask, why would a man with no connection to turkey refuse to condemn the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Because the favour of the Turkish Govermment means more to Bush NOW that the deaths of a few hundered thousand people 80 some odd years ago, but if in the future it is useful Bush (or whoever is in charge) would condemn Turkey just as quickly, remember that the U.S. government said nothing about Saddam gassing the Kurds when he actually did it, but they couldn't stop talking about it when they were preparing to invade. Morality is ALWAYS overpowered by expediency, at least in government.

[Alexires]

Just on someone wanting to move to Australia.... Don't.

It's rather funny. Americans want to move here, because they think they will be better off here, and Australians want to move to the US because we think we will be better off there.

I think I might move to NZ. At least they can own assault rifles. And if they can't, then I'll move somewhere that we can..... like America, or Canada or somewhere, God! There has to be somewhere left that is even marginally free....

A lot of things that Bush does doesn't seem to make sense from how we are looking at it. Israeli backing, maybe. But everything seems to be pointing towards Billary.

Perhaps NWO (or Israel) is backing Billary and in the process make Bush look like shit to almost guarantee she gets in. If the majority go for the nigger sympathy vote, then Obama gets in, and he is just a black Billary. Both seem to work for the same ends (as I understand it).

[nmp2]

BTW - President for life?

Let's welcome Hugo Chavez to the club. Yeah, that's what we need. Castro was 90 miles off our shores with potential Russian missiles (China is drilling for oil between Cuba and Florida now?!?!?!?) Now, Chavez is at the top of South America, president with no term limits, vowing an end to dealing with the US (1/4 of our oil), and getting military advice from China/N. Korea? Can the no-dong reach the US from there? Maybe the extended range version.

I forget who said it, but the crux of the quote I'm remembering was that no matter how tightly we hold our liberty, when an attack of sufficient shock hits us, we will willingly give away our liberty to gain security - and gain neither. (Ben Franklin, maybe?) If we end up in a "Venezuelan Missile Crisis", Americans will start giving up their guns like back seat drunken prom dates.
Watch it.

We pass the "Law of the Sea" treaty in Senate, Bush signs it and and it becomes part of the Constitution - and suddenly, we can't even drill for our own oil! This bill has already passed in committee.
Does a congress with a 11% approval rating even listen to it's constituents?

Hirudinea - dead on on both WMDs and Turkey.
Condemning Turkey now would be great for standing on principle, but there are more things for a president to worry about that 1200 Armenians in Nancy Pelosi's district. Turkey is about half an inch from becoming a radical Islamic nation, and in just too nice a geographic area for us to ignore as an ally. They are in a "war" with the kurds (who have consistently aided our troops in Iraq), and now have 100,000 troops on that border.

Do we side with the kurds who have helped us in Iraq, or the Turks who have helped us for decades, and who will alllow us staging areas for the entire middle east? Or neither and piss them both off.

WMDs? They were there, I saw them. (creds on request, NBK) How did Hussein gas Kurds without them? I remember our troops finding 100s of barrels of Sarin and Tabun, then the media, within days, asking, "..so where are the WMDs?" like they had been asleep. WTF?

Liberty or Death - the reason the analyst resigned was that we did find WMDs, yet never were they reported, yet the intel community caught shit for not finding them in the first place. I was in the biz and it's fairly frustrating. Policy and operations are not within the purview of intel.

[LibertyOrDeath]

WMDs? They were there, I saw them. (creds on request, NBK) How did Hussein gas Kurds without them? I remember our troops finding 100s of barrels of Sarin and Tabun, then the media, within days, asking, "..so where are the WMDs?" like they had been asleep. WTF?Saddam certainly did have chemical weapons -- back when he was using them with the full blessing and knowledge of the US government! In typical hypocritical, lying fashion, the US government only began condemning Saddam for having those weapons and for "gassing his own people" AFTER he ceased being a cooperative ZOG puppet.

Eventually Saddam had to get rid of those weapons because of the constant UN inspections. Meanwhile, Israel keeps a stockpile of WMDs because of the US double standard and the fact that the US foreign policy is essentially dictated by Jews.

Liberty or Death - the reason the analyst resigned was that we did find WMDs, yet never were they reported, yet the intel community caught shit for not finding them in the first place. I was in the biz and it's fairly frustrating. Policy and operations are not within the purview of intel.No, analysts were complaining before the invasion ever took place that intelligence was being "cooked":

C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports:
http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2003/student/readings/ciapressure.html

Here's an Aussie intelligence analyst who resigned:
http://www.rense.com/general35/analy.htm

Like it or not, the Iraq invasion was a war for Israel's benefit, pushed at the insistence of Jewish-Zionist agents like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky, and many others. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., were willing shabbos goyim. WMDs were only an excuse for the invasion; whether Saddam had them or not had nothing whatsoever to do with why the US went in there.

Furthermore, if you look at who's pushing the hardest for an attack on Iran, it's all the same Israel loyalists: hardcore neocon Jews like Norman Podhoretz (now Guiliani's foreign policy advisor), David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Joshua Muravchik, etc., and Christian Zionist Jew-worshippers like John Hagee. These are the same people who pushed for the Iraq invasion. They don't give a crap about American lives or whether we run up a national debt of a gazillion dollars with war after war; all they care about is parasitically using the US to make Israel more powerful.

If you want to know what's really behind America's aggressive Mideast policy, I highly recommend the following:

"How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War":
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

It's not just the Republicans who are behind it, by the way: many Democrats take huge bribes from AIPAC as well. Hillary is one of the top recipients of aid money from AIPAC, which undoubtedly explains her relatively hawkish position on Iran.

[akinrog]

Hirudinea - dead on on both WMDs and Turkey.
Condemning Turkey now would be great for standing on principle, but there are more things for a president to worry about that 1200 Armenians in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Actually this is not the first time the genocide bill came to US Congress: Even before existence of NATO (which means US and Turkey were not Allies), several times similar bills were proposed and refused in Congress. This time Pelosi managed to get it accepted in the committee since the chairman of the committee explicitly said he shall punish Turkey for not adopting a bill to enable US to attack Iraq from North.

Anybody who is interested might like to check out www.tallarmeniantale.com


Turkey is about half an inch from becoming a radical Islamic nation, and in just too nice a geographic area for us to ignore as an ally. They are in a "war" with the kurds (who have consistently aided our troops in Iraq), and now have 100,000 troops on that border.


A "war" with Kurds is just a bogus statement. First of all during the last terrorist attack by Kurdish separatists inflitrating from Iraq into Turkey, Kurdish terrorists raided an outpost and killed all soldiers therein kidnapping 8 of them.

So Turkey is fighting with Kurdish terrorists not Kurds since there is a Kurdish population in Turkey too.

Strange (??) thing these Kurdish terrorists use US Army issue weapons and explosives (A4) while performing their attacks.

Most probably just like coalition forces in Iraq encourage certain Kurdish terrorist groups (like Pejar (sp?)) to attack Iran for proxy wars, they are also encouraging some other Kurdish terrorists groups to attack Turkey too so they may suck Turkey into war or to discourage her to prevent establishment of puppet Kurdish state. Regards.

[megalomania]

I guess the Italian government has a lot of apologizing to do as well. In fact the Italians should pay American negros reparations because Italy is now where the Roman Empire used to be, and the Roman Empire destroyed Carthage, salted the earth in fact, and Carthage is in Africa... Perhaps if it were not for those Italians then Africa could have been more advanced o fend off slave hunters. Egyptians should also bear the cost of reparations because Rome did encompass them for a time.

What kind of idiot concerns himself with actions that happened nearly a century ago by a country that doesn't even exist anymore? That idiots title likely has Senator or Congresswoman in front of it.

[Hirudinea]

I guess the Italian government has a lot of apologizing to do as well. In fact the Italians should pay American negros reparations because Italy is now where the Roman Empire used to be, and the Roman Empire destroyed Carthage, salted the earth in fact, and Carthage is in Africa... Perhaps if it were not for those Italians then Africa could have been more advanced o fend off slave hunters. Egyptians should also bear the cost of reparations because Rome did encompass them for a time.

A thousand years ago vikings attacked my ancestors village, therefore Sweden owes me a Volvo!

What kind of idiot concerns himself with actions that happened nearly a century ago by a country that doesn't even exist anymore? That idiots title likely has Senator or Congresswoman in front of it.

Idiots who can't deal with today.

[jpsmith123]

As for weapons in Iraq, Saddam did in fact have as many as 3 nuclear warheads sold to him by "certain" countries, give or take a few. They weren't constructed there, but were already fully functional, just without a system of delivery.

LOL! If that were true, the Jew supremacists leading the U.S. to ruin would have had pictures of the evidence plastered all over every newspaper and TV station they own. That would have been perpetual front-page news...certainly any "exculpatory" evidence like that would not be kept secret.

In any case, to address your question, why shouldn't countries like Iraq and Iran have nuclear weapons? Who died and left the U.S. and Israel boss? If someone has a gun pointed at you, don't you have a right to have a gun pointed at them? It's now abundantly clear that nuclear "non-proliferation" is nothing but "gun control" writ large. IMO, either everybody should have them, or nobody should have them; anything else is immoral.

[megalomania]

If the jews took the nuclear weapons for themselves, perhaps one day to be "accidentally" detonated by a Hamas group within Palestine, Iran, or Libya, they might not want to advertise the fact. Once the evidence determines the nuke did indeed not come from Western sources, the jews can remain blameless.

[Hirudinea]

If someone has a gun pointed at you, don't you have a right to have a gun pointed at them? It's now abundantly clear that nuclear "non-proliferation" is nothing but "gun control" writ large. IMO, either everybody should have them, or nobody should have them; anything else is immoral.

Fuck morals, if you are pointing a gun at an unarmed intruder in your house would you give him a gun just to be "moral"? Never give an enemy, or potential enemy, an even break, it may not be moral but it is the best way to stay alive and in power.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Fuck morals, if you are pointing a gun at an unarmed intruder in your house would you give him a gun just to be "moral"? Never give an enemy, or potential enemy, an even break, it may not be moral but it is the best way to stay alive and in power.
The problem is that Israel is the unarmed intruder in the US house, and we've given them our gun so they can shoot us in the back. We're fighting their enemies over nukes for their benefit, not for ours. There's NO reason why the US and Iran have to be enemies.

The Israelis and their fifth column in the US have stabbed America in the back at every opportunity -- and their lobby, the media (in which Jews are greatly overrepresented), and their Zionist agents in the US government make sure they get away with it.

Here's a video of a speech given by a survivor of the murderous 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. There's no question that the attack was deliberate, in spite of the lame excuses and lies told by Israeli apologists. I highly recommend that everyone here take the time to listen to this veteran's story of how he and his fellow shipmates were betrayed by our treasonous, Zionist government; it will infuriate you:

http://pcapostate.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/a-real-american-hero-uss-liberty-survivor-phil-tourneys-speech-at-the-no-more-wars-for-israel-conference-in-southern-california%e2%80%8f/

As the old guy explains, the Israelis probably intended for the attack to be blamed on the Egyptians (hence the unmarked Israeli jets), thus bringing the US into the war on Israel's side. Yet the US government continues to cover up the incident to this very day.

Another incident in which the Israelis tried to attack American facilities and blame it on Arabs was called the Lavon Affair (1954):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_affair

And then, of course, there was 9/11. The Israelis definitely had foreknowledge of this event, as five Israelis were caught filming the WTC attacks and celebrating. They were arrested and quietly deported. This was featured in the news, but it's seldom mentioned today because it would be "anti-Semitic" to do so.

A book that carefully details and documents the connection between Israel and 9/11:

http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Enigma-11-Israeli-Connection/dp/0595296823/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4808817-8243634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194583278&sr=8-1

If you think the Israelis aren't this low, don't forget that a major part of Judaism is belief in the inherent superiority of Jews over the goyim (non-Jews; "cattle"). Here's a dissident Jew taking his Rabbi to task over the two-tiered Jewish moral standard that puts Jews above the gentiles:

The status of non-Jews in Judaism:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/letter1.cfm#25

So, to make a long story short, Uncle Sam takes it up the ass for Israel each and every time, and our country is being used like a ten-dollar whore, but it's "anti-Semitic" to point that out. It's anti-Semitic not to put the Jews above yourself and your own race. Instead, it's "Onward Christian soldiers! Nuke those Arabs! And above all, give up your liberties at home so we'll be safer from those evil terrorists!" They keep suckering the US into fighting their enemies, which makes the world hate the US, endangers our own security (and makes the sheeple cry for more laws and less freedom), and could one day bankrupt us.

Of course it's no coincidence that the two "front-runners" in the US presidential race are also the two candidates most closely tied to Israeli agents. Hillary is one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the Jewish lobby, and Giuliani's foreign policy advisors are the same Jewish arch-neocons who pushed for an invasion of Iraq. Until the system is overhauled, America will NEVER get another president that puts America's interests above Israel's.

I fully expect the Israelis, perhaps with the complicity of the US government, to launch a major attack on America (possibly nuclear) and then blame it on Iran or another country they want us to attack for them. They know damned well that if a nuke goes off in a US city, killing 100,000 people, that the American herds will be shrieking for the heads of the Iranians or the Arabs and will never even consider that the Israelis could have done it. They'll believe whatever ZOG tells them, just like good little sheep.

[Kaydon]

Why, oh why.. with all the truth still out there, do people STILL believe Israel is our friend and the Jew is an innocent victim of oppression for 2,000 years.

In Jewish folklore, a golem is a powerful creature created by the Jews to strike down anti-Semites. In truth, it pains me to say that America has become their golem, a powerful hitman, an enforcer they use to strike down their enemies. This is our role in Iraq, and we pay a horrendous cost in the blood and lives of thousands of our young men and women, the loss of a national treasure of American money. This evil, unprovoked, lying war has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men women and children and in every way it has aided the real enemies of America around the world.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir said it quite effectively when he said the Zionists use America to fight their wars by proxy. - David Duke

Think about this.. Just some random events that raised hell for evil reasons.

Holocaust - a Jewish lie, claimed twice.
Civil Rights Movement - Jewish and Communist backing
NAACP - Founded by a Jew
Israel - Jew state = bad idea!
Desert Shield-Iraq War - Started by Jews
Iraq = Vietnam
How about all the knowledgeable people who spoke about the Jew's inherent evil?


Things just don't add up to them being our "friends."


I concur with Mega and Liberty. I like how you think, Liberty.

Edit:

Liberty, about the USS Liberty.. Is that incident where the ship was attacked and assistance was on the way but was told to back off and head home? There's a good bit about that in a film by Alex Jones called Terrorstorm it's a really good documentary about False Flag operations.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Liberty, about the USS Liberty.. Is that incident where the ship was attacked and assistance was on the way but was told to back off and head home? There's a good bit about that in a film by Alex Jones called Terrorstorm it's a really good documentary about False Flag operations.Yes Kaydon, that did happen. Jets were initially sent to rescue the Liberty during the attack, but an order was sent from the White House recalling the jets, leaving the sailors to be killed. And the Israelis did try to kill every last sailor on that ship, using torpedo boats to machine-gun sailors who were trying to escape in lifeboats. :mad: They wanted no witnesses to remain.

Don't forget to watch the video of the survivor speaking -- he mentions those things. :) Also, there's a GREAT website run by the survivors of the attack here:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

Yes indeed, every single time a US politician talks about "supporting the troops," he is 100% full of shit. Such lines are merely used to manipulate the patriotic instincts of boobus Americanus. If US politicians really care about American servicemen, then WHY aren't they paying any attention to the Liberty survivors when the evidence that the attack was deliberate is overwhelming? They only "support the troops" when "our" troops are doing the will of wealthy, powerful kosher organizations such as AIPAC (http://www.aipac.org/) and JINSA (http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html).

Now, I'm not the type to feel homosexuality for someone just because he wears a US uniform and swears an oath to obey ZOG. I tend to judge people by their actions and their values, whether they're in the military or not. But the sailors on the USS Liberty weren't hurting anyone -- they were in international waters, yet they were attacked for no reason other than to deceive America into fighting against the Arabs for Israel. That's how much innocent life means to the Israelis. But even as bad as that is, it's nothing compared to the treachery of "our" government in covering up this crime. :mad:

EDIT: Maybe I should have waited until April 20th (Hitler's birthday) to make my 88th post. Then Abe Foxman would really be after me. ;)

[festergrump]

Something I just noticed... Liberty, that last post of yours was your 88th. LOL! You anti-semite, you! :p What a coincidence, huh? (you know I'm only razzing ya!). :)

++++++++=

To those who don't know, '88' is a neo-nazi slang term for 'Heil Hitler!', the 8th letter in the alphabet being H. nbk

[jpsmith123]

Fuck morals, if you are pointing a gun at an unarmed intruder in your house would you give him a gun just to be "moral"?


No, because an intruder in my house would be clearly in the wrong and therefore morally defenseless. Poor analogy.

A better analogy is to deny, let's say, *you*, for example, a gun to defend yourself, on the basis of my specious claims that you may one day decide to break into my house.


Never give an enemy, or potential enemy, an even break, it may not be moral but it is the best way to stay alive and in power.

ROTFL! I guess the context of my remarks escapes you? I was speaking from the perspective of a morally competent person, not that of a bloody imperialist warmonger, Jew supremacist, etc. IOW, I don't want to be or stay "in power"; I merely want to mind my own business.

[nbk2000]

Considering how long the US has had nukes, I'd say we've been pretty restrained in using them. Imagine a world where the japs or arabs had made them first.

Think that'd be a good world to live in, or that they'd allow 'equality of arms'?

Didn't think so.

[hatal]

Imagine a world where the japs or arabs had made them first...

Or the Third Reich? Oh, what a horrible thought! :rolleyes:

[nbk2000]

Maybe for you, but not for me. :)

[Aristocles]

*Superfluous Agreement Post Alert*

Maybe for you, but not for me. :)

... nor for myself... :)

[jpsmith123]

Considering how long the US has had nukes, I'd say we've been pretty restrained in using them.


In a sense, the U.S. "uses" them all the time (i.e., one of their their primary purposes is intimidation). The only reason the U.S. hasn't actually been dropping them on people is because, from the perspective of the evil pragmatists that generally rule the U.S., it either hasn't been deemed "necessary", or the negative consequences outweigh the "benefits".

Given the madmen now running the U.S., there's good reason to believe that this may change in the near future.


Imagine a world where the japs or arabs had made them first.


Imagine a world where the U.S. minded its own business, stuck to the foreign policy espoused by its Founding Fathers, and thus didn't go around needlessly making enemies for itself, as it did with the Arabs and Japs, among many others.


Think that'd be a good world to live in, or that they'd allow 'equality of arms'?
Didn't think so.

Once again, generally speaking, the only enemies the U.S. ever had were those that it needlessly made for itself. That said, I'm generally not in favor of gun control", regardless of how it's dressed up.

[megalomania]

Since someone brought up the morality of weapons, I would say it is an immoral act to begin with to hold a weapon to someones head without provocation. There must always be an immoral party when violence is involved. One party has to be an aggressor for there to be a defender.

It is not immoral to defend yourself, that is justice, the defender is the wronged party, and in fact it would be immoral to NOT defend yourself in the face of aggression. An intruder in your home is an act of violence, an attack against your privacy and safety. A gun can be hidden and the invader didn't have the time to draw it before you surprised him, there could be an accomplice ready to kill you about to surprise you. The criminal running away may just be seeking better cover in which to return fire.

The jews are a small people, they do not have the numbers or the industrial power to control or conquer even palestine. Is it not a greater military accomplishment to wage war by proxy, to have your "allies" crush your enemies for you?

What I don't see is what the US gets out of helping Israel. I would hate to think that our leaders, adept at manipulation and shady politics as they are, have nothing to gain.

I will not weep if every man, woman, and child of arab blood is exterminated. We, the West, will all be safer with one less enemy faction arraigned against us. A harsh assessment maybe, but a pragmatic one. The war on terror will only be won when the arab enemy is wiped off the face of the earth. Did not even God command the jews to destroy an entire people, even their livestock, and to leave not one beast or child alive? That's the story of Esther I believe. God knows the best way to keep your enemy from coming after you time and again is to exterminate them utterly. How many fools in America still think the South will rise again? The war is 150 lost, no one alive even knew anyone alive then. As long as the defated remain alive, the memory remains to be passed on from generation to generation until war breaks out anew.

The weapons of man give power to the wielder. The authority of US law is backed up by armed police officers, and armed soldiers. US nuclear weapons remain a club to browbeat our enemies into compliance. Ultimately the best thing for the world from the US perspective is business, we are a capitalistic country after all. Killing everyone and blowing up cities is not good for business. The very pragmatic reason we don't destroy all our enemies is you can't make profit that way. War is good for business, victory means and end to profit, just as treatment of disease is good for business and the cure is an end of profit.

[Aristocles]

It is my take that the U.S. is very much conrolled by ZOG. Sickeningly so...

Remember what Thrasymachus said was 'justice' (Plato's Republic)? "Justice is what is good for the stronger" or "might makes right". In the area of foreign policy, this seems to be the rule.

The morality paradigm sometimes goes "out the window" in the real world. It's not moral relativism; but there are certain pragmatic considerations that come into play. (Actually, think them in a Utilitarian sort of way, 'Benthamish', if you will.) U.S. FP seems to operate on the old, "felicific (hedonistic) calculus". Well, everywhere, except where Israel's interests are at the fore. Either that, or they have some poor counters.

To think about questions of moral equality seems to miss the point. It appears to me that "in this world of eternal struggle" there are the one's who have guns and the one's who do not.

For the life of me, I do not get why the U.S. has leveraged itself, in the middle east, in the way it has. It is my personal belief that it is ZOG control, combined with certain fundamental presuppositions that have lead to its employment or lack thereof, of the calculus in this manner, in the middle east. I am for the annihilation of the semitic race in toto. Jews and Arabs (cannot imagine someone who thinks either of these are our friends) alike ;)

[LibertyOrDeath]

The jews are a small people, they do not have the numbers or the industrial power to control or conquer even palestine.Well, they do have nukes of their own, but I suppose they can't use them on their neighbors without a severe conventional military response and likely environmental repercussions as well.

Is it not a greater military accomplishment to wage war by proxy, to have your "allies" crush your enemies for you?It certainly is an accomplishment, and it's exactly what the Israelis and their Jewish agents (and shabbos goyim like Bush, Hillary, etc.) in the US have been doing.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "military" accomplishment, though, as the (Zionist) Jews have primarily used public relations, lobbying, and espionage to get the US to bend over for them, incidents like the USS Liberty notwithstanding. Alas, I think it's less a sign of Jewish cleverness than the stupidity and gullibility of our fellow whites. :(

What I don't see is what the US gets out of helping Israel. I would hate to think that our leaders, adept at manipulation and shady politics as they are, have nothing to gain.The US gets less than nothing out of helping Israel. Basically, we send them billions of dollars per year of our tax dollars and fight wars for them, and in return we get the ire of a billion Muslims and diminished national security, leading to greater police-statism at home "for our safety."

US politicians do get something out of helping Israel, though: they get campaign contributions from groups like AIPAC. If they rub the Israel lobby the wrong way, AIPAC et al. will spare no expense to make sure they don't get elected next time.

It's also worth remembering that Jews are severely over-represented in Congress (something like 40%, I believe, in contrast to about 2% of the US population).

This is why "our representative government" represents Israel rather than us.

I will not weep if every man, woman, and child of arab blood is exterminated. We, the West, will all be safer with one less enemy faction arraigned against us. A harsh assessment maybe, but a pragmatic one. The war on terror will only be won when the arab enemy is wiped off the face of the earth.I understand this sentiment, and I have no love for Arabs (or any other mud races for that matter) myself. Yet the West would have no problems with the Arabs if we weren't being used by the Jews to commit aggression against them for the benefit of their little criminal state. Wouldn't it be a lot easier for us to just quit doing the Zionists' dirty work while they sit back and count the shekels we send them?

As for the "War on Terror," that will never be won because

(1) there are too many Arabs/Muslims in the world, some already with nukes (Pakistan).

(2) terrorism can be committed by anyone, not just Muslims, and the US commits it and supports it all the time.

(3) above all, it wasn't meant to be won. The "War on Terror" is basically a memetic declaration of eternal war against...anyone. Today it's the Jews' enemies, and tomorrow it could be us. By labeling any resistance to US tyranny as "terrorism," ZOG attempts to grab the moral high ground and secure justification for anything they might wish to do. Once you've declared war on something that will ALWAYS exist, you can rebuke all dissenters with the line, "we're at war" -- again, as if we were constantly running for the bomb shelters every day.

I'm not quite "hardened" enough to want to see anyone exterminated, whether Arabs, Jews, or even niggers. But even if I were, fighting the Arabs on behalf of the Jews is a no-win situation for everyone but the Jews. America is going to fall if we continue on the path of the USSR, trying to enforce our hegemony around the world according to the philosophy of the neocon neo-Jacobin kikes.

The weapons of man give power to the wielder. The authority of US law is backed up by armed police officers, and armed soldiers.That's precisely why I think this board is so important :), and it's also why we should NEVER allow ourselves to be disarmed. Eventually ZOG's guns will definitely be pointed at people like those on this board, with the goal of either killing us outright or taking us to ZOG dungeons to be waterboarded (except they'll probably call it "freedom-boarding"). Then we'll have a choice: meekly submit, or resist like men and try to take a couple with us.

[jpsmith123]

Since someone brought up the morality of weapons, I would say it is an immoral act to begin with to hold a weapon to someones head without provocation. There must always be an immoral party when violence is involved. One party has to be an aggressor for there to be a defender.


Exactly.


The jews are a small people, they do not have the numbers or the industrial power to control or conquer even palestine.


Not by themselves they don't. That's why they need (and through their amazing efforts, have) their American hammer. Without an endless supply of economic, military, and political support, from the U.S. Empire, the Jewish colonial project would fail; i.e., if Israel were to continue to exist (although not the expansionist-hegemonist racist state it is today) they would be forced to start negotiating in good faith, for a just peace with their "inferior" neighbors, something the Jew supremacists won't do.


Is it not a greater military accomplishment to wage war by proxy, to have your "allies" crush your enemies for you?


Well I suppose as a practical matter it's certainly better for the Jews to use their stupid American fools to carry out their genocide and ethnic cleansing. Why should they spill their own superior blood and spend their own money when there's a virtual sea of fools that can be easily manipulated into doing it for them?


What I don't see is what the US gets out of helping Israel.


When discussing this subject, I've found that you have to define exactly what you mean by the "U.S.". Obviously, the average person in the U.S. is being greatly harmed by the traitors in Washington that have sold out to the Zionists.


I would hate to think that our leaders, adept at manipulation and shady politics as they are, have nothing to gain.


Bush and Cheney and their enablers in Congress are nothing but delusional, power-mad puppets. The Jews control the media and they control a lot of money, and they know how to use it to maximum advantage. They are small in number but they are organized and they are focused. Apparently that's really all you need to control the U.S. government.


I will not weep if every man, woman, and child of arab blood is exterminated.


I used to feel that way too, until I became a student of History. Because of this, I was able to eventually overcome my brainwashing.


We, the West, will all be safer with one less enemy faction arraigned against us. A harsh assessment maybe, but a pragmatic one.


There's no reason the "Arabs" have to be "our" enemy. Other than, perhaps, the natives who once occupied America, "we" have no natural enemies. The Zionist Jews have been scheming for decades to build enmity between the "West" and the Arab world. Whenever I hear someone talk the way you are, I realize how successful they've been at it.


The war on terror will only be won when the arab enemy is wiped off the face of the earth.


The "war on terror" is a rather transparent fraud conceived in Tel-Aviv. (If you study History, you'll see that almost every U.S. "war" is a fraud, based on lies). And that's the way it will continue to be until we decide its time to make an effort to keep sociopaths out of high office.

[Kaydon]

I care nothing for any being living in the Middle East.

You can study History all day and all night, it changes absolutely nothing. The issue is not the past, nor the future, the issue is the present - the now. The scumbag ragheads are the enemy, and you eliminate any and all threats.

[jpsmith123]

Sounds like you need to join up, get over there as fast as you can, and start killin' them ragheads. Your Jewish masters will appreciate it.

[Aristocles]

I care nothing for any being living in the Middle East.

You can study History all day and all night, it changes absolutely nothing. The issue is not the past, nor the future, the issue is the present - the now. The scumbag ragheads are the enemy, and you eliminate any and all threats.

*QED* :D

I always think of the ME as the **pons asinorum** of the U.S. mind. I mean, anyone who believes that the radical Islamicist (they run the show) are a peaceful content volk who would pet their camels, smile a lot and sing Kumbaya all day, if Israel ceased to be, are deluded, at best. They are all prisoners to their radical elements just as many groups are. They have proved this ever since they were waxed by the Monguls. The Ottoman Empire rings a bell, I am sure.

But alas, I wonder, in human history what if any group of volk has remained content? Surely it's a small number...

When you are an alleged Capitalist/Democratic Republican (and later Imperialist) country you have, by definition, many enemies.

Needless to say, being a slave to zionist bullshit is also a problem. As far I am concerned, mutual annihilation in the ME would be glorious.

*QED= "quod erat demonstrandum"= "which was to be demonstrated"

** pons asinorum= bridge of asses

[jpsmith123]

I mean, anyone who believes that the radical Islamicist (they run the show) are a peaceful content volk who would pet their camels, smile a lot and sing Kumbaya all day, if Israel ceased to be, are deluded, at best.


Please explain how "radical Islam" would be a problem, especially an American problem, if there were no bloody Jewish colonial project and no U.S. imperialism in the MidEast?

[Aristocles]

Simple. Capitalism is an affront and a clear danger to Theocratic governments worldwide. It is very much the reason for the Cold War, among other things. Theocracies tend toward some sort of dogmatic ideology.

First, let me state that your postulate, "... no U.S. imperialism in the MidEast?" Could be responded to by my saying (typing) "if we were different we wouldn't be the same". Imperialism has been and is the foriegn policy of the U.S. government almost from the beginning, in one way or another. I fully realize we have had and one could argue were founded on insular principles, but the facts in the world, tell a different story... I am certain you would agree.

Here is a reasonable quote (I don't agree with it totally) that has some simplistic merit toward explaining:

"... But starting in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Islam and Christianity reversed directions, as regards the economy. Under pressure from a series of invasions, the Islamic world turned inward, establishing fundamentalism as the only permissible religious view. From that date forward, economic and scientific progress in that area slowly ground to a halt. By contrast, the Protestant Reformation freed Europe from the stultifying confines of Catholicism. Many scholars, such as Max Weber, date the origins of modern capitalism and the Industrial Revolution from this event."

I have no doubt that radical Islamicists see the West, per se, and America in particular as enemies. Frankly, it is 'commonsensical', to look at it as one looked at why the Marxists/Trotskyites/Lenninists/Stalinists, hated the "capitalist pigs" of the world. The specific reasons are based on a backwards, lunatic religion, and culture that want sees capitalism as a blight and abhorrent to God, and non-believers as infidels- evidently to be eliminated when they acrue the means. (It is a threat by it's very nature, the folks see what is an admittedly SHRINKING freedom and can be swayed from their fundamentalist beliefs.) This goes a way toward explaining some of the disdain for Saudi Arabians in the Arab world. Then again, virtually everyone would agree that they aren't a U.S. enemy and are in the pocket of Bush and ZOG?... I guess, you attack in the way that you are armed to...

Anyway, it's my belief that the insane FP making Israel a priority has exacerbated the problem, incredibly, here. But one's buying into ZOG is predicated on it's control of the U.S. government, correct? So, I guess, since I full on believe it, I am forced into the simple answer, to wit, 'we' are to blame for allowing ZOG to snow 'us'.

I have no idea of the prevailing ethos here, on this site, but I am, at heart, for the gain of the white race worldwide. I do not buy into the non sequitor and actually specious argument "the enemy of our enemy is our friend".

Hope this has in some way explained my thoughts and I actually doubt, in the grand scheme, that we differ much at all.

[nbk2000]

Ask the citizens of Vienna about the historically 'peaceful' nature of Islam.

[Hirudinea]

No, because an intruder in my house would be clearly in the wrong and therefore morally defenseless. Poor analogy.

A better analogy is to deny, let's say, *you*, for example, a gun to defend yourself, on the basis of my specious claims that you may one day decide to break into my house.

Actually if I have a gun I'ed rather you not have a gun, gives me an advantage over you, and while it may be immoral it makes me feel better, and thats what I'm concerned about.


ROTFL! I guess the context of my remarks escapes you? I was speaking from the perspective of a morally competent person, not that of a bloody imperialist warmonger, Jew supremacist, etc. IOW, I don't want to be or stay "in power"; I merely want to mind my own business.

Considering the effects a nuke can have on someone, even minding their own buisness, I prefer the 19th saying, relating to the "Lesser Races", "Whatever happens we have got/The Maxim gun, and they have not."

Ask the citizens of Vienna about the historically 'peaceful' nature of Islam.

Islam was founded as a religion of conquest, the Koran or the Sword, and has remained so ever since, its destruction and that of its followers would only benefit the world.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Anyway, it's my belief that the insane FP making Israel a priority has exacerbated the problem, incredibly, here. But one's buying into ZOG is predicated on it's control of the U.S. government, correct? So, I guess, since I full on believe it, I am forced into the simple answer, to wit, 'we' are to blame for allowing ZOG to snow 'us'.Many of the American people are at fault for this, for buying into all the bumper sticker slogans, Hannity/Coulter/O'Reilly fake conservatism, and general neocon propaganda intended to promote the "Clash of Civilizations" between the West and Islam. But the real blame lies with the traitors in the US government and the media propaganda mill. Fuck, I'd bet 30% of the American sheeple STILL believes that Saddam had a role in 9/11, thanks to Fox News (owned by Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch, of course).

As you've undoubtedly noticed, this forum is very tolerant of un-PC viewpoints, which is refreshing because even most so-called "conservative" forums will ban you outright or at least shout you down if you dare to suggest that the War on Islam is a Jewish plot to play the US for suckers. I've had this happen to me on more than one occasion, where I presented all kinds of arguments for my position only to be repeatedly called "troll," "anti-Semite," "liberal," blah blah blah. (Yeah -- I'm a liberal who advocates gun ownership and racial segregation. :rolleyes:)

"Conservatives" today obviously have their own form of political correctness: Jewish power is off-limits for discussion (just as blacks and other racial groups are off-limits for criticism on the left). So I basically gave up, damned all those sheeple for their God-given stupidity, and left those forums. Let them go and get themselves killed or maimed for the Jews if they want to. They were warned.

I have no idea of the prevailing ethos here, on this site, but I am, at heart, for the gain of the white race worldwide. I do not buy into the non sequitor and actually specious argument "the enemy of our enemy is our friend".I also consider myself pro-white, and I don't mean to imply by anything I say that I think we should invite Arabs into our country to date our daughters. Admittedly, I am forced to admire the courage and resourcefulness of Arab guerrillas who are fighting these huge ZOG armies without air power, all the latest body armor, top-notch medical care if they're wounded, etc. But that doesn't mean I see them as friends. We can learn from them, but we shouldn't trust them. If it's between Israel and the Arabs, then I side with the Arabs 100%; but neither of these ethnic groups belongs in the West.

My bottom line is that whites are NOT serving their own interests by constantly stirring up the hornets' nest in the Middle East and getting stung for the benefit of Israel, and then paying tribute to the Israelis for the privilege. The US is gaining NOTHING from occupying Iraq or attacking Iran except more enemies, and since we refuse to seal our borders, eventually a counterattacker is going to sneak in and do some real damage. The Zionist Jews are laughing at us for playing into their hands. Why continue to give them the satisfaction?

Thus, I advocate:

(1) Removing all US troops from the Middle East and other places where they're not needed, and stationing them on the US border to prevent infiltration of Mexicans, terrorists, and anyone else.

(2) Cutting off all foreign aid to Israel and to other foreign countries as well. US taxpayer money should be spent exclusively on the US.

(3) Minding our own business in the world. Putting an end to puppet dictatorships, CIA-instigated coups, and US bullshit hypocrisy about "spreading democracy" in general.

(4) If the Arabs STILL attack us, then they'll have no place to complain if we strike back hard.

[megalomania]

What I meant about the arabs was not that I wanted them killed, but that if they were I would have no feelings one way or the other. It is easy to dismiss a population on the other side of the world when they have little connection to Americans. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference, and since I don't know any arabs, or know anyone who knows arabs, if they all vanished I may not notice. Except for cheaper gas prices that is.

It is very true they do not have to be our enemy, but they are, and the bad blood is now there. Arabs do hold a grudge quite well. The Islamiat relegions are about as anti-Christian as one can get, with their worship of false idols and blasphemies against God, but then again they never murdered Jesus.

If we didn't need oil, would anyone even care about arabs? There is no oil in Africa that we need, so while all the heathens over there kill each other with frightening ease, the US does absolutely nothing.

[jpsmith123]

Simple. Capitalism is an affront and a clear danger to Theocratic governments worldwide.

ROTFL! Oh ok, the old "'they' hate us because of our 'freedom', etc." kind of thing. Is that what you're trying to say?

[QUOTE]
It is very much the reason for the Cold War, among other things.


Huh? (The Cold War was not about "ideology" per se; rather, the cold war was just another scam, with ideology being part of the pretext. Basically, then like now, the U.S. wanted to run the world, and Stalin was in the way. Of course this "conflict" fed the growth of the Military-Industrial complex in the U.S. and the rise of the National-Security state, and this new institution eventually became an end in itself. The "noble" cause of fighting the evil "communism" became the excuse for every U.S. atrocity anywhere in the world. In any case, if the Cold War were as represented by the U.S. government, NATO would have gone away, and the U.S. forward military posture would have been scaled back significantly, for example, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union).


Theocracies tend toward some sort of dogmatic ideology.


LOL! Don't look now, but there's "dogmatic ideology" all around you!


First, let me state that your postulate, "... no U.S. imperialism in the MidEast?" Could be responded to by my saying (typing) "if we were different we wouldn't be the same".


Huh? You implied that "radical Islam" in the Mideast would be a problem regardless of what the U.S. and Israel did. For obvious reasons, I disagree; and I'd like you to elaborate on what the problem would be and whom would be negatively affected (if by magic tomorrow there were no Jewish colonial project, and no U.S. imperialism in the Mideast).


"Imperialism has been and is the foriegn policy of the U.S. government almost from the beginning, in one way or another. I fully realize we have had and one could argue were founded on insular principles, but the facts in the world, tell a different story... I am certain you would agree.


Sorry, but you seem to be going off on a tangent. I'm simply asking you to elaborate upon and support your implication that "radical Islam" would be some kind of a problem to someone (the U.S.?), regardless of what Israel and its U.S. puppet state did in the Mideast.


Here is a reasonable quote (I don't agree with it totally) that has some simplistic merit toward explaining:

"... But starting in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Islam and Christianity reversed directions, as regards the economy. Under pressure from a series of invasions, the Islamic world turned inward, establishing fundamentalism as the only permissible religious view. From that date forward, economic and scientific progress in that area slowly ground to a halt. By contrast, the Protestant Reformation freed Europe from the stultifying confines of Catholicism. Many scholars, such as Max Weber, date the origins of modern capitalism and the Industrial Revolution from this event."

I have no doubt that radical Islamicists see the West, per se, and America in particular as enemies. Frankly, it is 'commonsensical', to look at it as one looked at why the Marxists/Trotskyites/Lenninists/Stalinists, hated the "capitalist pigs" of the world. The specific reasons are based on a backwards, lunatic religion, and culture that want sees capitalism as a blight and abhorrent to God, and non-believers as infidels- evidently to be eliminated when they acrue the means. (It is a threat by it's very nature, the folks see what is an admittedly SHRINKING freedom and can be swayed from their fundamentalist beliefs.) This goes a way toward explaining some of the disdain for Saudi Arabians in the Arab world. Then again, virtually everyone would agree that they aren't a U.S. enemy and are in the pocket of Bush and ZOG?... I guess, you attack in the way that you are armed to...

Anyway, it's my belief that the insane FP making Israel a priority has exacerbated the problem, incredibly, here. But one's buying into ZOG is predicated on it's control of the U.S. government, correct? So, I guess, since I full on believe it, I am forced into the simple answer, to wit, 'we' are to blame for allowing ZOG to snow 'us'.

I have no idea of the prevailing ethos here, on this site, but I am, at heart, for the gain of the white race worldwide. I do not buy into the non sequitor and actually specious argument "the enemy of our enemy is our friend".

Hope this has in some way explained my thoughts and I actually doubt, in the grand scheme, that we differ much at all.


Sorry, but I'm not following you.

[jpsmith123]

Actually if I have a gun I'ed rather you not have a gun, gives me an advantage over you, and while it may be immoral it makes me feel better, and thats what I'm concerned about.


LOL! Ok, well I appreciate your candor. Fuck everybody but yourself. I gotta tell ya, you'd make a good politician.


Considering the effects a nuke can have on someone, even minding their own buisness, I prefer the 19th saying, relating to the "Lesser Races", "Whatever happens we have got/The Maxim gun, and they have not."


First, who's "we"? You and the Bush administration? You actually identify with Bush and Cheney and their handlers? Are you a Bush supporter?


Islam was founded as a religion of conquest, the Koran or the Sword, and has remained so ever since, its destruction and that of its followers would only benefit the world.


Where'd ya hear that, on the TeeVee? That's funny, I've lived next to Moslems in other countries, and they've never once threatened to kill me because I wasn't Moslem. In fact, many of them actually seemed like reasonable people...of course I wasn't trying to steal their land, exploit their resources, kill and/or torture them, starve them, subjugate them, generally deny them the human and political rights I demand for myself, etc.
I think maybe you're watching too much Jew propaganda on Fox "News".

[Aristocles]

ROTFL! Oh ok, the old "'they' hate us because of our 'freedom', etc." kind of thing. Is that what you're trying to say?

Nah, I'm not really trying to say anything, I am typing some thoughts...

That seems a rather simplistic, interpretation of what I have typed. Why is capitalism a danger? Well, I am assuming it falls under the "Sorry I am not following you" part... Here, I'll quote a short passage: '(It is a threat by it's very nature, the folks see what is an admittedly SHRINKING freedom and can be swayed from their fundamentalist beliefs.) This goes a way toward explaining some of the disdain for Saudi Arabians in the Arab world. Then again, virtually everyone would agree that they aren't a U.S. enemy and are in the pocket of Bush and ZOG?... I guess, you attack in the way that you are armed to..."

Do I think they hate because of our (sadly) SHRINKING freedom? Yes and no. You see, if you have ever read anything or studied at all, and I assume you have, reading your Marx and Adam Smith helps clarify the issues. You see, I was drawing (somewhat strained, admittedly) parallels between the reasons each- both radical Islamics and the old Eastern Bloc Nations- "hate" the West. That parallel involved capitalism. Without going into anything but the most simplistic, radical Islamic Theocracy is anathema to capitalism, for the simple reason, IT PUTS TOO HIGH OF A VALUE ON CAPITAL AND GOODS. It is very JEWISH, in it's primal sense. This is anathema to the ascetic simple life devoted rigorously to 'allah', rather than seeking that almighty dollar and worshipping at the alter of conspicuous consumption. There are other more arcane reasons... this is too silly to continue...




Huh? (The Cold War was not about "ideology" per se; rather, the cold war was just another scam, with ideology being part of the pretext. Basically, then like now, the U.S. wanted to run the world, and Stalin was in the way. Of course this "conflict" fed the growth of the Military-Industrial complex in the U.S. and the rise of the National-Security state, and this new institution eventually became an end in itself. The "noble" cause of fighting the evil "communism" became the excuse for every U.S. atrocity anywhere in the world. In any case, if the Cold War were as represented by the U.S. government, NATO would have gone away, and the U.S. forward military posture would have been scaled back significantly, for example, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union).

Cold War not about a clash of ideologies? Ok, sure... Stalin was just a straw-man, if you don't believe me dig up some "purge" victims and ask! Eisenhower's warning re: military-industrial complex isn't really relevant to my point.

But all of this is rather weird considering your earlier statements concerning the ideology of U.S. imperialism and, of course the USSR's desire of the same was spelled out. If that is not a clash of IDEOLOGIES, namely (just to spell it out for you) the ideology of world domination. I am uncertain as to what might qualify.

Ultimately, I don't know what to say (type) to the above.



LOL! Don't look now, but there's "dogmatic ideology" all around you!

Ok, I won't look...



Huh? You implied that "radical Islam" in the Mideast would be a problem regardless of what the U.S. and Israel did. For obvious reasons, I disagree; and I'd like you to elaborate on what the problem would be and whom would be negatively affected (if by magic tomorrow there were no Jewish colonial project, and no U.S. imperialism in the Mideast).

I implied nothing. I stated that even without Israel they would be our enemy. And they would. They have proven this since the days of Osman I, through Kara Mustapha Pashav (wanted nothing more than to slaughter the Viennese and any Westerner), to and including the recent past. If you assume that sans Israel that they would become fun loving pranksters and be our buddies or even that they would be rather indifferent toward us, I doubt history when viewed as a whole, would support that. But hey, you're free, white, and 21, believe as you will. I just happen to think if they again had the power, they would behave much as the degenerate jew has (after all they are more or less racial brethren).



Sorry, but you seem to be going off on a tangent. I'm simply asking you to elaborate upon and support your implication that "radical Islam" would be some kind of a problem to someone (the U.S.?), regardless of what Israel and its U.S. puppet state did in the Mideast.

Nope you have convinced me; RADICAL Islam would not be a problem to anyone anywhere. Those glorious lovers of peace would no doubt never harm a fly. You have proven your points, those feral camel fucking cretins are welcome in my home anytime. Viva la Kara Mustapha Pasha! :) Yeah, yeah, I know, you are not saying that, you are simply stating that if left alone they would leave alone. Sorry, but I had to put the hyperbole and hand wringing in there; forgive me, it's in my polemical nature. I am a newbie here and do not wish to dominate the bandwidth. I'll leave you with what I have posted.

I apologize to 'Hirudinea' for going so far afield, mea maxima culpa

[DaedalusX]

No delivery systems ?

Couldn't he use his SCUD launchers to at least hit Israel ?

[Hirudinea]

LOL! Ok, well I appreciate your candor. Fuck everybody but yourself. I gotta tell ya, you'd make a good politician.

When it comes to a choice between them and me, me always win, name me one person who really thinks any differently?



First, who's "we"? You and the Bush administration? You actually identify with Bush and Cheney and their handlers? Are you a Bush supporter?

We as in the Western World, we're fool enough to let the third worlders invade us, but if we didn't have superior military technology they would slaughter us to take what we have. As for Bush and his handlers, bunch of idiots.



Where'd ya hear that, on the TeeVee? That's funny, I've lived next to Moslems in other countries, and they've never once threatened to kill me because I wasn't Moslem.

I've eaten in the same room with former talaban, you?

In fact, many of them actually seemed like reasonable people

Most people seem reasonable when you don't disagree with them, have you ever discussed politics or religion with muslims?

...of course I wasn't trying to steal their land, exploit their resources, kill and/or torture them, starve them, subjugate them, generally deny them the human and political rights I demand for myself, etc.

Which Islam has been doing in every land it hs ever established itself in, talk to Christians, or Zoroastrians, or Hindus, or Buddhists in Muslim lands ... if you can find them, remember Afghanistan used to be Buddhist, look at it now, do you wish that on the West?


I think maybe you're watching too much Jew propaganda on Fox "News".

I never watch Fox News, if I want to laugh I watch Fox cartoons.

But let me just say one think, you have to get over your fixation on the jews, they may be a problem but not the only one we face, when your house is on fire you don't go ape shit about a leaky tap!

[jpsmith123]

When it comes to a choice between the and me, me always win, name me one person who really thinks any differently?


It's one thing to "put yourself first", as most people obviously do, but there comes a point where you would be deemed a "sociopath". From your statements, I'm trying to figure out where you are on the spectrum. If I understand you correctly, you're implying, for example, that if it were in your power, you would deny everyone on the planet (except you of course), a gun. Is that right? If so, I'm leaning toward "malignant narcissism" as your place on the spectrum.



We as in the Western World, we're fool enough to let the third worlders invade us,


Actually, "we", *the people*, didn't let "third worlders" invade us; our rulers did. And a disproportionate number of those rulers are Jews, and they actually have an agenda, whether you realize or care to acknowledge it or not.


but if we didn't have superoir military technology they would slaughter us to take what we have.


ROTFL! Iraqis, for example, would sail to our shores and invade us and steal our jewelry?

BTW, there's a lot of wealthy people living in Panama City, Panama, and Panama has no Armed Forces; I wonder why nobody has invaded?

FYI, the real threat to America, as always, comes from within. As I type this, our rulers are looting the treasury. They're robbing us blind. The dollar is dropping like a stone, and this is only the beginning. They're taking our rights and our property. They're preparing to involve us in another illegal, immoral conflict that could easily lead to WW3, or at least, to the end of the U.S. as most would recognize it. Yet you're apparently so fixated on the Jewish contrived conflict with Islam, that you fail to notice the real assault on your rights and your property.


As for Bush and his handlers, bunch of idiots.


In what sense are they "idiots"?


I've eaten in the same room with former talaban, you?


Well, not that I'm aware of, at least. Does that matter?


Most people seem reasonable when you don't disagree with them, have you ever discussed politics or religion with muslims?


In fact I have. And from my observations, most of them are far more reasonable people than U.S. rulers. For example, the Taleban offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to a third country, a neutral country, for trial, if the U.S. produced some evidence of his involvement in 9/11, but when Venezuela produced evidence against the terrorist Luis Posada Carilles, being harbored by the U.S. government, and demanded the U.S. turn him over, U.S. rulers told Venezuela to go pound sand.


Which Islam has been doing in every land it hs ever established itself in,


Please give some examples of modern imperialism by Moslem countries.


talk to Christians, or Zorastians, or Hindus, or Buddists in Muslim lands ... if you can find them, remember Afghanistan used to be Buddist, look at it now, do you wish that on the West?


You've bought into the absurd Jew propaganda 100%, haven't you? Moslems are going to "take over" the U.S.? Is that what you really believe?


I never watch Fox News, if I want to laugh I watch Fox cartoons.

But let me just say one think, you have to get over your fixation on the jews, they may be a problem but not the only one we face, when your house is on fire you don't go ape shit about a leaky tap!


To the extent Islam is a legitimate "problem" for the U.S. (and it isn't), it's a secondary problem; the primary problem is Jewish control of our government and the ruin it will certainly bring. Once again, the conflict between "the West" and Islam is completely contrived; America is being sacrificed right in front of your eyes, on the altar of Zionism, and you refuse to see it.

[Tiburon]

I don't think it would do any good for the people who got him on his present position to discredit the system letting him keep the presidency after his time is up.

After all this is the showcase of democracy, isn't it?

[Alexires]

When it comes to a choice between them and me, me always win, name me one person who really thinks any differently?

I absolutely agree. If it is a choice between me and someone else, then I choose me. If I don't give a fuck, for instance, what movie the group sees, then obviously I'm not going to care, but if someone threatens me, and I feel that I have to take them down to feel safe, I will do so. And everyone else. So if I was a leader of a country, and I felt my country was threatened by another, I would take it out, if possible.

Most people seem reasonable when you don't disagree with them, have you ever discussed politics or religion with muslims?

Although I haven't had extended contact with muslims, I have discussed religion with one, and when asked what he would do if someone insulted Allah, or his religion, he got really fired up and said that he would punch them out and attack them, etc.

So personally, I think that they are a dangerous race in general. Sure, like niggers, you get the odd one here and there that may seem intelligent, or "not too bad" but on the whole, they are untermenschen that serve no purpose but to propagate violence and their own stale beliefs.

I don't care if someone has belief contrary to my own, but as soon as they try to impose that belief upon me, they become dangerous. And from what I know and understand, Islam is a religion that preaches conversion or death.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Although I haven't had extended contact with muslims, I have discussed religion with one, and when asked what he would do if someone insulted Allah, or his religion, he got really fired up and said that he would punch them out and attack them, etc.The thing is, though, that's a pretty universal behavior once you start moving away from the right side of the bell curve. It's not limited to Muslims. Most groups have their sacred cows.

For example, there are so-called American "patriots" who worship the US flag, say that they'd kick anyone's ass who burned it in front of them, and want to see flag abuse outlawed. (Obviously such people care a hell of a lot more about the flag than the First Amendment or freedom in general, which you'd think the flag was supposed to represent. :rolleyes:) These people are not much less fanatical than the radical Muslims, IMO, and they hate freedom just as much, no matter how lip service they pay to it.

Similarly, the Jewish supremacists have managed to get any questioning of the holocaust outlawed in several European countries, and they've always pushed hard for multiculturalism and "hate crimes" legislation in America. If they have their way, then in ten years or so it will be illegal to say ANYTHING offensive to protected racial minorities, especially Jews. We're already at the point where the hanging of a noose from a tree (without anyone in it) is considered on a par with severely gang-beating someone (the Jena case).

So personally, I think that they are a dangerous race in general. Sure, like niggers, you get the odd one here and there that may seem intelligent, or "not too bad" but on the whole, they are untermenschen that serve no purpose but to propagate violence and their own stale beliefs.I don't think Muslims are nearly as innately stupid as niggers tend to be -- in fact, they have a history of some impressive scientific developments -- but the more radical variety hold beliefs that are as backward as any other fundamentalist religion, and that's what holds them down. It's like they're stuck in the dark ages.

Are they dangerous? Well, that depends. Some Muslims are very fanatical, but others have no problem peacefully coexisting with others.

When I was a Catholic (now I'm agnostic), I read a story in The Catholic Review about Palestinian guerrillas who took refuge in a Christian church from Israeli soldier-thugs. Initially, the priests told the Palestinians that weapons were not allowed in the church and asked them to leave -- and they politely did so! That tells you something right there. But later on, the Arabs were forced by intense Israeli fire to return, and a stand-off ensued. During the stand-off, the priests were treated with respect, and if memory serves, they were told that they could leave but didn't want to. I don't recall how the situation ended except that the IDF thugs did a lot of damage to that church and probably enjoyed it (religious Jews hate Christianity FAR more than Muslims do, as indicated by the Talmud).

On the other hand, once you have a majority of Muslims in your country, then you have to deal with laws forcing women to wear headscarves, etc. This is primarily a danger for European countries that have foolishly opened the floodgates to Muslim immigration. Muslims are to Europe what Mexicans are to the US. Once you have enough of them, they'll try to change the laws to force their way of life on you.

Regarding a military threat from Muslim nations -- there basically is none. All the talk about Iran's president being the "new Hitler" is preposterous bullshit propaganda. Iran is NO threat to anyone. All the stink about Iranian nukes is due to the fact that Israel and its US puppets want Israel to keep the nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. That's all there is to it.

I don't care if someone has belief contrary to my own, but as soon as they try to impose that belief upon me, they become dangerous. And from what I know and understand, Islam is a religion that preaches conversion or death.It depends on the variety of Islam. Remember, Saddam was a Muslim, yet one of his highest officials, Tariq Aziz, was a Christian! So obviously not all Muslims believe in forcing their views on others.

Radical Islam is certainly a danger in countries where it has power, but then again, so is fundamentalist wacko Christian Zionism (John Hagee, Pat Robertson, etc.). Both of these groups are warlike and want something like Armageddon to happen so "prophecy" can be fulfilled.

So the solution isn't to go overseas to fight wars with the Muslims. That only makes the problem worse and benefits no one but the Jews who keep saying, "Let's you and him fight." The solution is to merely keep them out of the West.

If I had my way, I'd limit (or reverse) all non-white immigration into Western countries, seal off the borders with troops who are currently spread around the world, and limit my dealings with Arabs to buying their oil at a fair price.

Incidentally, most US oil doesn't come from the Middle East:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Nevertheless, our warmongering over there is certainly making gas more expensive. That's just another way the US takes it up the ass for Israel each and every time.

[Bugeye]

Most people like to pull the race card here, but in fact it is not about race at all, it is about religion.

It is about deferring decision making and ethics to a higher power. Since the higher powers have seen fit to not grace us with their presence in many a century, it is left to the followers of said religions to base their decisions and ethics on centuries old transcripts of questionable origin.

Muslims therefore follow the Koran and view the life of the caravan raider Mohammed as sacrosanct and perfect.

Anyone who has read about and understood the actual historical Mohammed and his rise to power will have no problems understanding both the Muslim mind and their predeliction for up front graphic and gory aggression.

Even the concept of the Jews/Zionist being the root of the problem is all about religion and the supposed promised people in another highly revered book.

The problem is difficult however because each comes to the table with his or her own higher power and reference point.

The solution is difficult, because the easiest would be to nuke the entire ME including Israel but that would leave the oil inaccessible due to radiation and as has been shown, conventional war is just not going to work in a region that lusts after hand to hand combat and the sight of mangled bodies.

[Alexires]

Liberty - The problem with morals is that one must realise that it is nearly impossible to not be guilty of hypocrisy. Yeah, I agree that probably everyone has a tender spot that they would react violently to if provoked, and that that tender spot is simply arbitrary. But one must accept their hypocrisy, for truly, if you don't stand for something, you will forever kneel to others.


Regarding a military threat from Muslim nations -- there basically is none. All the talk about Iran's president being the "new Hitler" is preposterous bullshit propaganda. Iran is NO threat to anyone. All the stink about Iranian nukes is due to the fact that Israel and its US puppets want Israel to keep the nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. That's all there is to it.

I don't agree with the War on Terrorism *cough* but remember I don't live in all powerful America.

I live in a country with a population of 20 million, and the (almost theocratic) nation of Indonesia pretty much on our northern border that has a standing military six times as big as ours.

Do you truly think that if Indonesia invaded, America would intervene on our behalf? I doubt it, but that is my own personal view. Allow me to be a little worried about our.... peaceful Muslim northerners.

[LibertyOrDeath]

Liberty - The problem with morals is that one must realise that it is nearly impossible to not be guilty of hypocrisy. Yeah, I agree that probably everyone has a tender spot that they would react violently to if provoked, and that that tender spot is simply arbitrary. But one must accept their hypocrisy, for truly, if you don't stand for something, you will forever kneel to others.I agree, but basically what I stand for relates to what you said earlier: not allowing others to force their beliefs on me or otherwise make me their slave. So I don't really think there's anything hypocritical about your position or mine -- it's really just about self-defense and standing up for yourself, rather than trying to force your views on someone else.

I don't agree with the War on Terrorism *cough* but remember I don't live in all powerful America.

I live in a country with a population of 20 million, and the (almost theocratic) nation of Indonesia pretty much on our northern border that has a standing military six times as big as ours.

Do you truly think that if Indonesia invaded, America would intervene on our behalf? I doubt it, but that is my own personal view. Allow me to be a little worried about our.... peaceful Muslim northerners.I hear ya, and I certainly wouldn't want to see Australia let down its guard, especially if there are any tensions with the Indonesians. (In fact, your security against an invasion would be a lot better without all those gun restrictions on citizens!)

It's not that I think Muslims are all warm, fuzzy, and peace-loving. Not at all. I just think that as long as they're staying in their own lands and not invading anyone else, then we shouldn't attacking or meddling with them. That only pisses them off and makes them want to counterattack the only way they can -- terrorism -- and then we get an endless escalation, which is exactly what the Israelis and US-ZOG want.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

If past actions are any indication of future ones I think the US would stand with Aus. No questions asked. Aus. has stood with the US in EVERY major war/ military theater from the 20th century forward. If Aus was attacked by Indonesia and asked the US for aid; that aid would be forth coming immediately. There simply is no reason not to provide aid to such a long term ally. TO NOT DO SO would be extremely impolitic;only an imbecile would not offer aid. It would be somewhat like Canada being attacked. The world is much smaller now.

[Bugeye]

If past actions are any indication of future ones I think the US would stand with Aus. No questions asked.

The problem with this statement is that both Aus and Indo are allies of the US. Sure if a cold blooded invasion just happened, US would come to our aid unless occupied in other theatres. But wars rarely start like that and the diplomatic efforts preceding such an invasion would likely mean that US involvement between two allies would not be such a simple matter.

[nbk2000]

If Bush stays in power, he'd go nuc-le-ar on the indo's.

But if Billary gets into power, she'd do nothing, as those indo sweatshops are filling her stock portfolio quite nicely. :p

[Hirudinea]

It's one thing to "put yourself first", as most people obviously do, but there comes a point where you would be deemed a "sociopath". From your statements, I'm trying to figure out where you are on the spectrum. If I understand you correctly, you're implying, for example, that if it were in your power, you would deny everyone on the planet (except you of course), a gun. Is that right? If so, I'm leaning toward "malignant narcissism" as your place on the spectrum.

Nuclear weapons are different from guns, lets get back to that, do you think any unstable third world regime filled with people who dispise the west should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons? If you do your crazy. :) Oh and by the way I don't like the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons either, but once somebody has nukes its much harder to get them to give them up, pre-emption is the safest way.




Actually, "we", *the people*, didn't let "third worlders" invade us; our rulers did. And a disproportionate number of those rulers are Jews, and they actually have an agenda, whether you realize or care to acknowledge it or not.

I agree, but third worlders are here, and they are a danger, why do you think our "leaders" brought them here anyway?

ROTFL! Iraqis, for example, would sail to our shores and invade us and steal our jewelry?

Iraqis, muslims, don't need to sail to our shores, they are already here, or do you live in the boondocks?

FYI, the real threat to America, as always, comes from within. As I type this, our rulers are looting the treasury. They're robbing us blind. The dollar is dropping like a stone, and this is only the beginning. They're taking our rights and our property. They're preparing to involve us in another illegal, immoral conflict that could easily lead to WW3, or at least, to the end of the U.S. as most would recognize it. Yet you're apparently so fixated on the Jewish contrived conflict with Islam, that you fail to notice the real assault on your rights and your property.

I recognize the dangers, but you don't, your obsession with one problem is blinding you to all others, thats a good way to get killed.

For example, the Taleban offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to a third country, a neutral country, for trial, if the U.S. produced some evidence of his involvement in 9/11

No muslim ever has, or ever will, admit that Bin Laden had anything to do 9/11, the offer was bullshit.

Please give some examples of modern imperialism by Moslem countries.

Saudia Arabia for one, they are funding wahabi mosques and terror recruiting sights all over the world, makes me want to buy a Prius.



You've bought into the absurd Jew propaganda 100%, haven't you? Moslems are going to "take over" the U.S.? Is that what you really believe?

Muslims have wanted top take over the world from the time of Mohammed, what makes you think they have changed in the last ... oh, few seconds?

To the extent Islam is a legitimate "problem" for the U.S. (and it isn't), it's a secondary problem; the primary problem is Jewish control of our government and the ruin it will certainly bring. Once again, the conflict between "the West" and Islam is completely contrived; America is being sacrificed right in front of your eyes, on the altar of Zionism, and you refuse to see it.

I see that there two problems (among others) and that with proper stragety we can use one aginst the other thereby solving both, you're to caught up with the jews to see anything else.

I absolutely agree. If it is a choice between me and someone else, then I choose me. If I don't give a fuck, for instance, what movie the group sees, then obviously I'm not going to care, but if someone threatens me, and I feel that I have to take them down to feel safe, I will do so. And everyone else. So if I was a leader of a country, and I felt my country was threatened by another, I would take it out, if possible.

Foresight is one of the things that seperates, some, humans from the animals.



Although I haven't had extended contact with muslims, I have discussed religion with one, and when asked what he would do if someone insulted Allah, or his religion, he got really fired up and said that he would punch them out and attack them, etc.

So personally, I think that they are a dangerous race in general. Sure, like niggers, you get the odd one here and there that may seem intelligent, or "not too bad" but on the whole, they are untermenschen that serve no purpose but to propagate violence and their own stale beliefs.

I don't care if someone has belief contrary to my own, but as soon as they try to impose that belief upon me, they become dangerous. And from what I know and understand, Islam is a religion that preaches conversion or death.

Yes. Strange that if you said the above about Jews (which would also be true) JP would be part of the amen chorus, but say it about Muslims and he thinks your a fool and a dupe.

[Kaydon]

Whoever doesn't believe the Muslims are a threat to Western society lives in a fantasy world.

If I see a Muslim, I'm going to tell him to tell Allah to suck my balls!

[jpsmith123]

Nuclear weapons are different from guns, lets get back to that, do you think any unstable third world regime filled with people who dispise the west should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons? If you do your crazy. :) Oh and by the way I don't like the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons either, but once somebody has nukes its much harder to get them to give them up, pre-emption is the safest way.


Who gets to decide which regimes qualify? Who gets to play God? BTW, most people in the world today see the U.S. as a lawless banana republic, ruled by a cabal of delusional, bloodthirsty Jewish supremacists and their psychopathic power-mad goy puppets, and capable of anything. IOW, they see the U.S. as far more of a threat to the world than Iran, for example, and, based on the historical record, justifiably so.

In fact, AFAIK, the U.S. is the only country in the world today that has openly declared, by way of various official documents, that it seeks "world domination". A country that trashes international law and openly declares a goal of "world domination", at least in part through military force, is going to make a scene over someone else's efforts to defend themselves?

Look at history. It's pretty obvious that China's nuke program was a defensive response to U.S. threats to use nukes against them. Look at the Cuban missile crisis: The Soviet Union's attempt to put missiles in Cuba was basically a response to U.S. missiles installed in Turkey, aimed at them.

Be honest, if you lived in Russia today, for example, would you trust the U.S. as it interferes in your internal affairs, expands NATO to your borders and plans to surround your country with missiles? Of course you wouldn't, if you had any sense.

In light of all this, the U.S. and its apologists are in no position to say who can or cannot have nukes...you're using the same argument that elitist gun control freaks use.

On the contrary, if everybody had nukes, we'd have a far more peaceful world.


I agree, but third worlders are here, and they are a danger,


In what sense are they a danger? They're going to get together and rob your house? Is that what you're getting at? Anybody that's paying attention can see that the Jews are the danger. They're organized, they're intelligent, they're effective, they're consummately evil, and there is a robust historical record of Jewish treachery against countries that host them. They are a unique and deadly threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world for that matter.


why do you think our "leaders" brought them here anyway?


First, we have no "leaders", we have rulers. Second, Jews were a major factor in bringing them here, at least in part as a deliberate means to weaken our culture. (It's much harder to exert influence over a culturally homogeneous society where strong cultural traditions work against efforts of outsiders to establish control).

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf


Iraqis, muslims, don't need to sail to our shores, they are already here, or do you live in the boondocks?


Please reread your original statement, You said: "We as in the Western World, we're fool enough to let the third worlders invade us, but if we didn't have superior military technology they would slaughter us to take what we have."

So please explain: How do fancy subs and fancy fighter jets, i.e., "superior military technology" protect us from third worlders that are already here?


I recognize the dangers, but you don't, your obsession with one problem is blinding you to all others, thats a good way to get killed.


LOL! Based on your statements here, you obviously don't recognize the danger at all. How you get killed is by attacking Moslem countries that never did anything to us. We need to be fighting destructive Jewish influence at home, not running all over the world like fools slaughtering innocent people for Jewish supremacists.


No muslim ever has, or ever will, admit that Bin Laden had anything to do 9/11, the offer was bullshit.


And apparently neither does the FBI, for that matter. And how do you know the offer was bullshit?

In any case, you actually think OBL did it? Apparently you're a believer in the "official" story?

The whole point of terrorism is to make a point. You don't pull off the most daring, most devastating, most dramatic terrorist attack in history, but fail to make a claim of responsibility; fail to make a statement as to why you did it; and instead go hide under a rock, do you?

That'd be like robbing a bank, but leaving the money by the door on the way out. Pulling off the most dramatic terrorist attack in history, against symbolic targets in the U.S. Empire, isn't quite the same thing as murdering your spouse to try to collect the insurance money, is it?

The notion that "Arab terrorists" led by OBL did 911, without any legitimate claim of responsibility, and no statement of why they did it, instead leaving it up to a bunch of fatuous government apologists and the Jew controlled media, to declare they did it "because they hate our 'freedom'", or some such infantile self-serving nonsense, is laughable.


Saudia Arabia for one, they are funding wahabi mosques and terror recruiting sights all over the world, makes me want to buy a Prius.


Gee, I wonder why we don't invade? Maybe because Saudi Arabia is a loyal U.S. puppet state?


Muslims have wanted top take over the world from the time of Mohammed, what makes you think they have changed in the last ... oh, few seconds?


That's just nonsense. Please supply some proof. How are Moslems going to take over the world? They're going to land on our shores and take us by force?

On the other hand, Jews have already taken over the U.S. government, almost completely. We have Jewish supremacists loyal to Israel in Congress; we have them in the Pentagon; we have them in our Courts; they own almost all of our major media; we have them in our corporate boardrooms; we have them in many prestigious places in our society.

Moreover, Jews have demonstrable, disproportionate influence over many European governments...witness the imprisonment of Ernst Zundel in Germany, for example, for his thought crimes in trying to expose the Jewish holocaust hoax.

As I type this, Jews are pushing to criminalize thought in the U.S., just like they have already accomplished in many other countries.

Jews are leading us not only to the end of America as we know it, but possibly to the end of civilization as we know it.


I see that there two problems (among others) and that with proper stragety we can use one aginst the other thereby solving both, you're to caught up with the jews to see anything else.


That's because I try to make a distinction between primary and secondary problems. I look for things like cause-and-effect. I look at historical evidence.
I consider my own life-experiences. I also try to see things from viewpoints other than my own. Put simply, unlike many people in the U.S. today, perhaps even you, I'm not afraid to think for myself...I've overcome my brainwashing.


Foresight is one of the things that seperates, some, humans from the animals.

Yes. Strange that if you said the above about Jews (which would also be true) JP would be part of the amen chorus, but say it about Muslims and he thinks your a fool and a dupe.


The Jews and their traitorous goy puppets have deceived you. You've been brainwashed. Consequently, your paradigm is wrong. There's no other way to put it. You want me to tell you lies to make you feel better, or do you want to know the ugly truth?

[Charles Owlen Picket]

JPsmith123:
I read David Duke's Jewish Supremacists also. I have also read quite a bit of Kevin Macdonald, etc. Duke received a forum to speak from Iran & in return became a fawning admirer of the "Islamic Republic". Be that as it may; Duke's loyalty does not invalidate the points made by Hirudinea, Alexires, and others who just don't buy the "enemy of my enemy" concept.

I just don't see a need to think that Islam is anything but what it purports to be... Or for that matter to defend Islam, when it speaks to cutting YOUR head off. Because, Whiteman, that's just what will happen! It is not the "friend" of the West. What's more if YOU don't bow to Allah if the world becomes Islamic; you will loose your head. Please read the Koran. You have read a bit of Duke (pretty light writing for a man with a Doctorate), you have read some MacDonald; follow it up with an understanding of who you may be in bed with. What IS Hirudinea's paradigm and why is it "wrong"? There is a distinct difference between a paradigm and a modular conceptualization (response made to specifics in a discussion).

[jpsmith123]

For the sake of establishing a reference point upon which to judge ancient "religious" writings, Please read the Talmud. Please read the Old Testament.

In any case, I'm not "defending" Islam. My main point is, the U.S. has no problem with the Arab/Islamic world that could not be cured by simply minding its own business. In order to do that, we need to stop letting delusional, bloodthirsty Jewish supremacists dictate our "foreign policy".

It's really that simple.

[Kaydon]

If a guy is kicked out of one bar, maybe it's the bar.. If a guy is kicked out of a hundred bars, maybe it's the guy ;) That goes for the Jew.

[Alexires]

Liberty - I totally agree with you. I don't believe our position is hypocritical, but I'm just wary of the quagmire that thinking too much about morals can become.

Charles - Maybe the US would come to our aid..... but what happens if another superpower (say China) told the US to keep out of it? I have a feeling we would be on our own then.

Jpsmith - I don't like Jews. I don't like Muslims more. We've already pissed the Muslims off, and now that we have, I'm not sure what we should do. Iraq wasn't a good idea in the first place, IMHO, but as the army teaches: Fight the battle, not the war. If the Jews are using 3rd world immigrants to ruin your country, fuck the immigrants off. When you have dealt with the battle, work out what the fuck you are going to do about the war.

I don't know who is right here. Without first hand knowledge it is hard to know really. But I don't like muds, Jews, and muslims, and that is the way it is going to stay until one of them proves they are worth being regarded as a human being.

While stimulating, perhaps this is all a little off topic?

[Shadowmartyr]

Whoever doesn't believe the Muslims are a threat to Western society lives in a fantasy world.

If I see a Muslim, I'm going to tell him to tell Allah to suck my balls!

Congrats! You are believing what your government wants you to think! Go ahead and pick up your rifle and "getcha sum" towel heads, your jewish masters will appreciate your sacrifice to protect Israel.

Oh and you do realize "Allah" is the same God, of Abraham, that Christians pray to right?

[Kaydon]

Conflict between the West and the Arab-Islamic world dates back to the days of the Prophet himself. Before Europe ever launched the first Crusade, the Muslims had already conquered two thirds of the Christian world, and Muslims believed it would be only a matter of time before Europe would finally succumb.

Islam is a religion created by a Semitic people, the Arabs, much as Judaism is a creation of a Semitic people. Islam was created as an instrument of Arab imperialism; even though many non-Arabs are today Muslim, the faith originally served the Arabs as an ideology of conquest. Islam is therefore the creation of the most ancient enemy of our race, the Semites.

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml

Both are my enemy.

The "Muslims are fine, Jews must go" thing doesn't make sense.

The Talmud and Koran are both evil.

Jews and Muslims, are both evil.

They're both enemies of White Nationalism.

Simple goal: All Whites out of European countries, and Jews... aren't White by any means.

[Shadowmartyr]

Conflict between the West and the Arab-Islamic world dates back to the days of the Prophet himself. Before Europe ever launched the first Crusade, the Muslims had already conquered two thirds of the Christian world, and Muslims believed it would be only a matter of time before Europe would finally succumb.

Islam is a religion created by a Semitic people, the Arabs, much as Judaism is a creation of a Semitic people. Islam was created as an instrument of Arab imperialism; even though many non-Arabs are today Muslim, the faith originally served the Arabs as an ideology of conquest. Islam is therefore the creation of the most ancient enemy of our race, the Semites.

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml

Both are my enemy.


So the Arabs are your enemies because of wars fought back nearly 850 years ago? You do know that these "Crusades" were launched by the Pope in the name of "Christendom". So in a sense, the Christians are the ones that launched the first recorded war/crusade to retake the holy land.


The "Muslims are fine, Jews must go" thing doesn't make sense.


Maybe you should read the very first page of this post. Or even better yet, watch CNN or any other jew-controlled network, if any luck you will realize what they are telling you is what you want to hear, a bunch of fabricated lies.


They're both enemies of White Nationalism.


Last I checked the "White Nationalism" movement involved a bunch of skinheads and Hitler worshipers.


Simple goal: All Whites out of European countries, and Jews... aren't White by any means.


You think that is every going to happen?

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Kevin A Strom (National Vanguard, National Alliance) Champion of White Nationalism makes many feel proud by getting popped for jacking off to pictures of little under-age girls (the Prussian Blue kids) plastered on his computer screen. Another wack-job in Alabama (Bill Riccio or whatever the little Leader's name is) gets hammered for fucking under-age boys who "live with him".... From what I've seen "Jews" and God knows what don't really need to "smite the White man from within". Whitey does a damn good job on his own.
A couple of minutes on Stormfront will make anyone sick of that bullshit to the point of staying away from it for good.

[jpsmith123]

Most people I've discussed this issue with, people that find it necessary to equate the U.S. with "the West" and to reach back to "the Crusades", in order to find some reason to despise (or at least, claim to despise) the Arab/Islamic world, seem to do so as an alternative to admitting that the Jews duped them into supporting Bush's ruinous Zionist crusade.

As far as Kevin Strom is concerned, I don't really know what he did or didn't do, or what his perversions may or may not be; to the extent he's a "wack-job", all I can say is: it's too bad that if you want to get the ugly truth about what's happening in the world today, you almost have to go to a "wack-job" to find out.

Lastly, even if Strom is a "wack-job" pedophile, what do we call someone like Richard Pearle or Norman Podhoretz, or the millions of other Jew supremacists whose wet dreams involve the destruction of our society and the murder of untold millions of innocent people? Strom may be a pervert, but the people leading the world to catastrophe are monsters.

[megalomania]

If you are going to be a champion of the White race you must live under the microscope of public scrutiny. Few men are virtuous enough to not have any dirt under their fingernails, or skeletons in the closet. Dirt also has a way of being planted, or a man's virtues and values can be distorted completely out of context by the media. They are trained to create controversy and news where there is nothing.

If Strom was not a White Nationalist, would the authorities have singled him out? Likely not. If the nergros and the jews were not so effective at infecting the White race with guilt at our alleged atrocities and crimes, then more respectable White men would step forward to lead the movement.

[Kaydon]

lolz.

That's all I have to say to you talking bad about White Nationalism.

We have no "Leaders" no one 'voted" for these people, they're just White Nationalists who are speaking on our behalf, and people are listening. Unless we hold an election, and one wins, there are no "Leaders' so you can stop using your little buzzwords now.

Hitler Worshipers and Skinheads, that statement proves you don't know jack-shit about White Nationalists.

In terms of the Muslim, why should I like them? The Jew media has no bearing on my hatred for the Muslim, their media influence doesn't affect me. I know it wasn't rogue Muslims that hijacked airliners and flew them into the WTC. I know it wasn't a group of rag tag Muslims that bombed the London subways.

Their ideology, is what I hate, and in connection I hate them.

Personally, I like ham. :D and, I like to be able to see my woman.


As far as an all-White nation being possible, it's entirely possible, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.. Our best bet is to fix our justice system, and rid ourselves of the Jew. Apes are tolerable, in cages :D



I'm well aware the Jew is using us to eliminate their enemies in the MidEast, that's old news. The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing doesn't work for me, though.

Link dump.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=695495&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavjNvkgqew

http://judaism.about.com/od/antisemitism/a/antisem07.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

http://www.wake-up-america.net/jewish_and_israeli_spies.htm

We could kill every raghead in existence, the Jews would just find a new enemy and begin another long brainwashing session of getting us to think they're evil so we could war with them.

The Jews are probably the same reason Bush is still alive, since he's such a good little puppet they have no reason to put a hit on him.

[LibertyOrDeath]

I think most here are on the same page more or less. That doesn't surprise me too much, as people who aren't afraid to experiment with forbidden substances aren't very likely to be afraid to explore forbidden ideas with an open mind. And nothing is more forbidden in our society than the subject of race and ethnicity (especially anti-Semitism, but really all forms of racism).

I want to stress that no one who is seriously pro-white really advocates snuggling up to the Muslims, especially the radical variety. I don't hate Muslims as long as they're doing their own thing in their own countries on the other side of the world, but I don't want large numbers of them coming into Western lands and changing everything around.

As I said, I do admire the willingness of the radical Muslims to actually fight against much more powerful foes. Let's give credit where it's due: those people actually DO what most of us have just been talking about so far. Also, I think in many cases their grievances are legitimate, and many of them been unjustly brutalized by Israel and others. But that's as far as my sympathy for them goes. When they are allowed to settle in Western countries in large numbers, they can become a threat, and this is happening in many areas of Europe (e.g., France).

On the other hand, Organized Jewry and Zionism are a MUCH greater threat to the well-being of America (as opposed to Europe) than radical Islam. The reason is simple: this threat has infiltrated and subverted nearly every US government, media, and cultural institution for the benefit of the Chosen People and at the expense of whites.

Who are the more dangerous enemies: the ones you can see clearly and with whom you exchange fire with on the battlefield, or the spies and saboteurs in your ranks? The former are analogous to fanatical Muslims; the latter are analogous to the Zionist Jews who have taken over the US government and media.

If Strom was not a White Nationalist, would the authorities have singled him out? Likely not. If the nergros and the jews were not so effective at infecting the White race with guilt at our alleged atrocities and crimes, then more respectable White men would step forward to lead the movement.Exactly.

Even if Strom is a pervert, that doesn't mean his other ideas are incorrect. However, the government and media know that prosecuting such people tends to discredit their ideas, so this is done vigorously whenever possible to white nationalists.

Another example is David Duke, an excellent spokesman against Jewish supremacism who was almost certainly railroaded by the feds and forced to plead guilty (to fraud, I believe) in order to avoid going before a (probably substantially non-white) jury that would probably have sent him away for as long as possible. But even if he really did commit fraud, his writings on the subject of Jewish power are exceptional.

Some Jew-namers have "only" lost their jobs as a result of their willingness to expose the truth. For example, Joseph Sobran (http://www.sobran.com/) was fired from the National Review when the neocons took over because he wouldn't toe the line on Israel (the object of every neocon's true loyalty). True conservatives like Sobran have been marginalized by the neocons, and nowadays "conservative" has come to mean little more than "anyone who wants to see the US 'kick ass' in the Middle East to protect Israel." (Giuliani is a fine example: he's the GOP front-runner, yet he's nothing more than warmongering, police-statist liberal.) Yes indeed, Big Jewry is much more than just a lobby; it's a political mafia that reaches into all segments of American society.

I can only imagine how badly ZOG wants to discredit Prof. Kevin MacDonald (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/) for his writings. Granted, he's not a household name like David Duke; but MacDonald names the Jew in such an academically rigorous manner, using Jewish sources as much as possible to demonstrate Jewish subversion and control of the West, that I don't see how they can ignore him for long.

BTW: Charles mentioned Stormfront. I haven't posted there in years, so I can't say for myself how much it's deteriorated; but some very good politically-oriented boards that freely discuss racial issues are The Phora (http://www.thephora.net/forum/) and Original Dissent (http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/index.php). VNN used to be okay, but now it has a rather low signal-to-noise ratio.

[nbk2000]

http://podblanc.com/ is a good site, like a Nazi you-tube minus the Jew-Tube censorship. :)

I believe that the VAST majority of stories about WN being perverts or what-nots, is likely the result of jew-media lying and character assassination.

Regarding an all White nation, look at Germany during the height of the Reich. No niggers, and jews were hiding in sewers and attics like the vermin they were.

We White's have to start dealing with the problem.

http://podblanc.com/files/9970.flv

[Shadowmartyr]

http://podblanc.com/ is a good site, like a Nazi you-tube minus the Jew-Tube censorship. :)
http://podblanc.com/files/9970.flv

Ughhh.

I just watched the Russian beheading video (http://podblanc.com/files/4360.flv) of the white supremacists I'm guessing behead two jews?

For some reason I absolutely don't have the stomach to watch something like that? Can you imagine that happening to yourself? Thats fucking sick to put it plainly. The chech clear video wasn't even that bad.

Disgusting.

[nbk2000]

They weren't jews (unfortunately), just some random muds.

[Kaydon]

The individuals that are being made reference to are doing nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of speech. I don't recall ever hearing any of the said individuals professing to be "leaders." If the fact that people are listening to those individuals makes them "leaders" in peoples minds, so be it.

People can call us "Nazis", "white supremacists" and "hatemongers," but they can't say we're wrong, at least not from a factual or logical standpoint.

As things stand, the best they can do, is to resort to character assassinations based on their biased, prejudiced and selective interpretation of the issues. They have yet to prove otherwise. I'm speaking on the general consensus about White Nationalism here. Besides that, every group has their set of idiots.

Also bear in mind that it has always been the underdog that has made the most significant changes throughout history. The ignorant masses will go wherever they're directed.

We will not surrender the very nations that OUR forefathers founded, built, fought, bled and died for without a fight to the bitter end. If we can't have our own nations like every other racial and non-White ethnic group, then nobody will. That's a guarantee.
-------
For each of us, there are four of them
It matters not to us
We won't leave this field in shame
We are here to crush!

Our hearts are full of pounding rage
Our minds hard as steel
Right before the dying day
We will have you down

No retreat, no remorse
Victory will be ours
Blood on steel, sacrifice
Victory will be ours
-------

The above being a song by Amon Amarth.

I wouldn't say Stormfront has fallen any, it's the Opposing Views forum that's ruining, all the idiots can come and post to never return.. But if it's removed, that gives them ammo to say we censor our opposition, when we pride ourselves on being able to face their arguments, and destroy them.

White people need to stand up and act.

[nbk2000]

/FTP/UPLOAD/NBK2000/Conspiracy and NWO/Der Ewige Jude - The Eternal Jew - (English subs).flv

Watch it and tell me the difference between the jews in 30's Germany and American jews today. Only difference is time and location...the behavior is exactly the same.

And some funny cartoons:
http://jj.am/gallery/v/Racist/Resist/

[Charles Owlen Picket]

If you are going to be a champion of the White race you must live under the microscope of public scrutiny. Few men are virtuous enough to not have any dirt under their fingernails, or skeletons in the closet.

And this brings to the fore the question of whether KAS was in any manner a "champion". He did an enormous amount of work - virtually all of American Dissident Voices technical stuff and I supposed he felt he was going to be the "heir apparent" to Pierce. But Peirce knew he wasn't the right stuff. Listening to him (KAS) for a few moments or reading some of personal (non-technical) stuff he had written would convince anyone, that this was just not the right guy to run an organization of any size & strength.

Frankly, I don't doubt that his foibles were exposed to public view. He couldn't control his woman for Christ's sake! He was the nimble minded little undergrad kid forced to compete in a grown-up world: much more at home jacking off in front of the computer than speaking to the public. He competed in a man's world and lost. That really all there was to it.

I think he must have known all that going in after Pierce's death. Perhaps he committed "career suicide", knowing his wife would rat him out? Stranger shit has happened..... And don't get me wrong, I think the guy was sharp. But it takes a hell of a lot more than a nimble intellect to run something of that nature (NA/NV) and have some growth, prosperity, and strength.

[Bugeye]

/FTP/UPLOAD/NBK2000/Conspiracy and NWO/Der Ewige Jude - The Eternal Jew - (English subs).flv

Is there some other place that I can see this? (Newbie: No access to FTP)

[nbk2000]

Yeah, the same place I did...UTFSE.

[Bugeye]

Yeah, the same place I did...UTFSE.

As I had done, and found a torrent. At this rate I will have finished downloading it in about 9 days. I was simply hoping that since you are intimate with this file that you may have readily at hand a better option.

Thank you for your assistance.

GHTWHT:BGHTCHT

[monkeyboy]

Lots of interesting stuff in this thread, thanks to the previous posters for a good read.
After thinking about it for a good long while, I think our reasons for being in Iraq are far different than a lot of people think.
I think we are in Iraq to control/limit the supply of oil. Simple economics, you limit the supply, the prices go through the roof. When we invade Iran, it will be for the same reason. There is only so much oil out there. Allowing it all to be available at the same time artificially lowers the price. Especially when one or more of the countries producing it won't limit their supplies.
Who benefits?
Well obviously, the oilman president, his friends & family. That Saudi he was getting all smoochie with on the white house lawn. The vice president also is making a pretty good chunk for his cronies at Halliburton. The CEO of Exxon just got a $400 million retirement bonus.

I just read an article, by a Jew that thinks we ought to be out of the middle east, too. Actually made a lot of sense.
It's titled Energy independence by 2020, came in the January issue of the Futurist. It's 10 pages.
I scanned it & put it on rapidshare.
http://rapidshare.com/files/69962270/Energy_Independence.pdf

[jpsmith123]

The Iraq war essentially has nothing to do with "oil". That theory has been thoroughly debunked. Any attempt by the Bush/Cheney terror team to profit from Iraqi oil is similar to what a rapist-murderer would do after raping and strangling his victim...and then discovering she was carrying $1000.00 in her purse.

At the most basic level, U.S. aggression in the Mideast is all about Jewish supremacism. And Jews, of course, like to push the idea that it's "all about oil", as that's a great way to obfuscate the primary role of organized Jewry in this madness.

(BTW it's the Iraqi insurgents, not Bush's mercenaries, that are trying to "limit" the flow of Iraqi oil; and let's face it, Bush and Cheney don't need to start a war to enrich themselves and/or their cronies, as they can apparently just help themselves to the U.S. treasury).

[hickey]

At the most basic level, U.S. aggression in the Mideast is all about Jewish supremacism

How True....
Sometimes this made me realize that this pesky race is the root of the problem of the United States today.
Its all about protecting the Jews...I think that was all the US presidents are doing since the Second World War?

This made me realize (sometimes) that Adolph Hitler is a hero after all when he initiated the extermination of the Jews!:p

After the US government had helped saved many of these Jewish people during the war they are never grateful to their benefactor.

Therefore any prospective leader ( would be president) would remain a puppet and succumb to the malicious influence of these Jewish termites...:mad:

[Shadowmartyr]

Ughhh.

I just watched the Russian beheading video (http://podblanc.com/files/4360.flv) of the white supremacists I'm guessing behead two jews?

For some reason I absolutely don't have the stomach to watch something like that? Can you imagine that happening to yourself? Thats fucking sick to put it plainly. The chech clear video wasn't even that bad.

Disgusting.

Well supposedly numerous sources are now claiming this video a fake, but it looks awfully real to me. Could just be propaganda by Russian authorities to deny the recent rise of race hate crimes committed near Russia's borders.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/neonazi-beheading-video-a-fake/2007/10/20/1192301098201.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest_of_World/Russian_neo-Nazi_beheading_video_a_fake_Report/articleshow/2476033.cms
http://www.downundernewslinks.com/?cat=6