+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: [S]Election 2012

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,134

    Default [S]Election 2012

    [S]Election 2012



    http://www.whitenationalist.org/foru...=4500#post4500

    Wherein is discussed sundry articles of notice for the 2012 [S]Election cycle.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum
    http://mamzers.org/useful/audio/TMT


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 01-04-2012 at 08:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,174

    Default Those Newsletters

    Those Newsletters
    By Richard Spencer
    Friday, 23 December 2011


    http://www.alternativeright.com/main...e-newsletters/
    http://beer.weremight.com/forums/sho...7154#post57154
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=5021#post5021



    Ron Paul has a real chance of winning next week’s Iowa caucuses. And not surprisingly “the Smearbund” (as Murray Rothbard termed it) has returned—along with discussion of those newsletters, which have haunted the Congressman for 15 years.

    The GOP establishment will tolerate Paul so long as he remains a folksy and charming long-shot. (He’s even useful in that he keeps Constitution-thumping die-hards within the Republican fold.) But the second it looks like the man might actually win, the gloves come off.

    To be sure, most of the smears of Paul’s brand of Old-Right libertarianism are unfair and ungrounded; and they usually amount to a variation on theme—“You don’t want to invade [Insert Middle Eastern Country], ergo you endorse [Insert cruel dictator]! Such logic is invariably accompanied by allusions to Hitler, “the lessons of Munich,” yadayadayada. (This past week Dorothy Rabinowitz shrieked that Paul is a “propagandist for our enemies.”)

    That being said, the claim that Paul’s newsletters from the ‘90s are “racist” (at least as that word is commonly defined) is, in fact, quite fair.

    One can defend most of what is written on libertarian, non-racial grounds, as Justin Raimondo did in his powerful 2008 piece from Takimag. But the fact remains that the newsletters were “racist” in the sense that race is real—it has a remarkable analytic and predictive capacity—and the newsletter authors (whoever they might be) were willing to “go there.”

    As Steve Sailer put it during the last iteration of this controversy, the main thing the newsletters exposé proves is that “Dr. Paul's newsletters weren't as boring as the Main Stream Media.” (In turn, the scandal reminds us of just how boring Beltway journalism remains: four years on, the same people on both sides of the debate are saying the same damn thing over and over again.)

    It’s convenient for the mainline media to brand the newsletters—as well as all race-thinking—as the equivalent of a rube dropping the N-bomb at the dinner table, that is, as crude, irrational, and superstitious. But in reality, race-thinking is dangerous heresy—and this is why any serious discussion of racial differences is stamped out so swiftly, ruthlessly, and self-righteously.

    In this line, Paul’s critics like to point and stutter at various sentences from the newsletters taken out of context.
    “[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
    But when such shockers are put back in context—the aftermath of the LA riots—they are revealed to be quite reasoned and potent...if still racist:
    Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
    The newsletter’s discussion of David Duke’s ’91 gubernatorial campaign is equally perceptive. As the authors note, White Louisianans—a majority of whom backed Duke—didn’t do so out of love for Holocaust revisionism or Duke’s past with the Klan. Duke struck a nerve because he ran a “Majority Strategy” campaign, promising to end affirmative action and slash the welfare state that funds Black social dysfunction. That is, Duke was attacking the political engine of White dispossession in places that it hurt.

    Needless to say, such points get lost as Beltway journalists “grapple” with Paul’s insensitivity.

    The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein, a representative “movement conservative” publicist, is horrified by the newsletters’ “racism” and lack of unconditional support for Israel. He writes,
    Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have both attacked each other for what was written in their respective books. If either of those books had included a number of overtly racist statements, their candidacies would be over before they started.
    The point, of course, is that Romney and Perry are allowed to have tiffs over healthcare policy because it ultimately doesn’t matter much (outside of the scoring of “gotcha” points.)

    Race, on the other hand—along with enthusiastic Zionism—is the central shibboleth for who gets purged and who gets promoted in American conservatism.

    One particularly loathsome Republican, for instance, is allowed to cheat on successive wives while they are deathly ill—and then make a career out lecturing conservatives on “Rediscovering God in America” with his former mistress. If the aptly named “Newt” Gingrich had, however, quoted approvingly from the scientific writings of Richard Lynn or J.P. Rushton at any point in his career, he would swiftly be run out of the Party on a rail.

    Race is a shibboleth even on the anarcho-capitalist “fringe.” John Robbins, Paul’s chief of staff during the early ‘80s, is calling on Lew Rockwell to ‘fess up to being the newsletters’ author, and cleanse the Paul movement of Hate. Apparently, Robbins and his ilk are quite willing to combat the trillion-dollar forces of finance capital; they shutter, however, at the thought of associating with a racist.

    The Business Insider’s Michael Brendan Doughterty is another who expresses outrage at the newsletters. His political analysis of the situation is, generally speaking, accurate; he is wrong, however, when he suggests,
    Rothbard and Rockwell never stuck with their alliances with angry white men on the far right. They have been willing to shift alliances from left to right and back again. Before this "outreach" to racists, Rothbard aligned himself with anti-Vietnam war protestors in the 1960s. In the 2000s, after the "outreach" had failed, Rockwell complained bitterly about "Red-State fascists" who supported George Bush and his war. So much for the "Rednecks." The anti-government theories stay the same, the political strategy shifts in odd and extreme directions.

    As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing—it was abandoned by Paul's admirers. [emphasis in the original]
    The ‘90s were hardly some unreconstructed age when racism was acceptable. Indeed, nothing much has changed in terms of the dominance of PC in major institutions, and conservatives’ total inability to confront it.

    More important, though I’m far from certain Lew Rockwell was the author of the newsletters, the fact is, the libertarians surrounding Paul—including Rockwell and Rothbard—had a sincere and serious interest in race, and felt that it was the basis of the identity of traditional Americans (“rednecks”). And though Rothbard and Rockwell have often flirted (unsuccessfully) with the anti-war Left; as biographical accounts suggest, their “paleo” strategy was a return home.)

    So much is made clear by the Rothbard-Rockwell Report (happily available at Unz.org), which was not a cynical “outreach” ploy but a high-level organ for initiates. Sam Francis, Michael Levin, as well as undecided discussion of The Bell Curve appear in its pages.

    In many ways, the RRR (as well as the more rough-and-tumble newsletters) represent a moment when race-realism could be productively integrated with Austrian economics, as well as a quintessentially American anti-Establishment, populist spirit. It was an “alternative Right” (though one with different concerns than this website.)

    It’s worth returning to Rothbard’s stirring “Right-Wing Populist Program” from January 1992:
    Slash welfare. Get rid of underclass rule [“BRA”?] by abolishing the welfare system…

    Abolish Racial or Group Privileges.

    Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums.

    Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters.

    America First.

    Defend Family Values.

    One reason why I have a soft spot for Ron Paul is not only because he is a recognizable human in a sea of sociopaths but because I can imagine him approving of Rothbard’s program, as well as the sentiments expressed in the newsletters.

    Unfortunately, the Paul of 2012 seems to have gone quite wobbly on the immigration issue. And whether out of a desire to please donors or resignation at White American’s apparent demographic destiny, Lew Rockwell has totally abandoned the National Question at the RRR’s successor, LewRockwell.com—and even promoted anarcho-capitalist multi-culti.

    I don’t think the newsletters controversy will stick (it certainly didn’t last time around). And I don’t think it will mark a ceiling on the Ron Paul movement at large (as Doughterty suggest); there is an inherent democratic ceiling for the movement due to the fact that large portions of the voting population love war, federal handouts, affirmative action, healthcare entitlements, and much else. (The Kali Yuga is popular.)

    I find it sad, however, how quickly the libertarians’ “right-wing” moment has been flushed down the memory hole.

    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 01-04-2012 at 08:31 AM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In the South, where he wants it made
    Posts
    748

    Default NY Times attacks Ron Paul

    NY Times attacks Ron Paul


    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...acks-ron-paul/
    http://www.whitenationalist.org/foru...=4982#post4982



    Ron Paul at an event last week in Iowa, where he has been gaining ground in his bid for the Republican nomination for president.


    New York

    The recent attacks on Ron Paul for being a “racist” and an anti-Semite have been so vicious that I have begun to reconsider my opposition toward his candidacy.

    Strangely enough, Ron Paul seems to be within striking distance of winning in Iowa and New Hampshire. This is having a salutary effect upon the liberal establishment which is tearing its hair out with self righteous accusations that Paul is a rightwing extremist who is supported by eeevvvilll “white supremacists”:
    “Mr. Paul’s calls for the end of the Federal Reserve system, a cessation of aid to Israel and all other nations and an overall diminishment of government power have natural appeal among far-right, niche political groups. Aides say that much of the support is unsolicited and that it is unfair to overlook the larger number of mainstream voters now backing him.

    But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.

    In May, Mr. Paul reiterated in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing segregation. He said that he supported its intent, but that parts of it violated his longstanding belief that government should not dictate how property owners behave.”

    I’m not sure I can oppose someone who would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Ron Paul also opposes foreign wars, opposes the Federal Reserve, and supports cutting off aid to Israel. It is his weak position on immigration that is so disappointing. Yet there is plausible argument to be made that gutting the welfare state would deter legal and illegal immigration while cutting off African-Americans at the same time.

    By the time the 2012 campaign swings through Alabama, I suspect that Bachmann and several of the other candidates will have dropped out of the race. If I am forced to choose between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, I will likely end up voting for Paul again.

    Note: Kievsky weighs in on the New York Times article.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LywD6gXBudc


    Last edited by Librarian; 01-08-2012 at 12:46 AM.



    The quality of people I am reaching is much higher than I ever did with a forum.
    I'm now at the top of the racialist intellectual community in the United States.
    I was a nobody when I ran The Phora.


  4. #4
    Jack is offline Formerly TrashCanMan72 Veteran Member Jack is a jewel in the rough Jack is a jewel in the rough Jack is a jewel in the rough Jack is a jewel in the rough
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    ZOG-occupied, whigger-infested East Tennessee.
    Posts
    280

    Post Jokeapalooza 2012: The quest for republican (ir)relevance

    JOKEAPALOOZA 2012: THE QUEST FOR REPUBLICAN (IR)RELEVANCE



    by CGO
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=5052#post5052






    Well, here we are. Four years after Barack Hussein Obama won the Iowa Democratic Caucus and went on to win the Presidency. We're all still alive and we're not in the FEMA camps....yet. ;-( ;-D





    Nonetheless, there's very little left of the world that we all woke up to that chilly morning of January 3. 2008. :-/ The economy imploded. Bailout followed bailout. GM now stands for Government Motors. 60% of Amerikans now advocate raising taxes on "the rich", even though doing so wouldn't even make a dent in the 14 trillion+ national debt. And the Occupy vermin are in every major city, demanding a full-scale Communist revolution, and threatening to burn the country to the ground if Comrade Obama doesn't meet all their demands. :-(





    The Powers That Be have finally allowed the mask of democracy to fall and shatter into a million pieces. They wanted it that way. No longer do the Amerikan sheople falsely believe they are living under free-market capitalism. Now everyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes and freely admits what I was called a kook for saying four years ago, ---even by some in the racialist Right, ---namely this: What we have in this country is, at best, a Fabian Socialist fascist state, and we are headed towards CLASSIC TEXTBOOK COMMUNISM at breakneck speed.





    This growing awareness, more than anything else, has fueled the Tea Party movement, (or the CONstitutional Ghost Dance, as I prefer to call it) which managed to return the House of Representatives to the Republicuntz in 2010.





    No sooner had they gained power, however, than they chose the notorious liberal, John "Butt-In-The-Air" Boehner, as the new Speaker. It still blows my mind how quickly he was chosen, and how little outcry there was from the Tea Party. Didn't they know his record? THE GUY'S THE BOB DOLE OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE!!! HE *COULDN'T WAIT* TO SPREAD HIS BUTT-CHEEKS FOR THE MAGICAL NIGGER!!! Yet not one squeak of protest. Strange. Strange indeed. No angry threats. No slogans like "DEMINT OR DEATH!" or "RYAN OR REVOLUTION!" No nothing.





    It was the equivalent of if, once having won the Revolution, not Washington, who, at least, had been the Commander of the Continental Army, but, rather, Aaron Burr or someone of his ilk, then seized the reigns of power, and, yet, no one said a word, let alone lifted a finger to stop it. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. :-/ :-(





    Little wonder, then, that, once he took the gavel, instead of doing what the voters had elected him to do, namely to cut, cut, cut, like Lizzie Borden with a chainsaw, all he's done is cave, cave, cave, and kick the can down the road. ;-(





    So, what to do? Well, the obvious answer is to vote his sorry ass out, come November, even if it means voting for his Democratic opponent. ;-( ;-D That way, they'll have to choose someone else as Speaker. :-)





    Nonetheless, it certainly won't amount to much if we end up electing someone to the White House that makes Prince John look like Pat Buchanan by comparison. ;-( Even Dumbyass fought with his own Congress over the issue of illegal immigration, and he styled himself as a "conservative". Imagine what would happen if we elected some ragged-ass RINO to the left of Mike Dukakis's left testicle. :-O :-0 :-/ He'd try to bully the Congress into submission, and, since, unlike Obongo, he would be a member of their party, he would probably be even more successful. :-/ :-(





    WELL, GUESS WHAT? WE ARE ABOUT TO DO EXACTLY THAT, UNLESS THE AMERIKAN ELECTORATE WAKES THE FUCK UP AND PULLS ITS COLLECTIVE HEAD OUT OF ITS ASS!!! ;-(





    Why? Read on. ;-( ;-D







    __________________________________________________ _____________________________________







    PART ONE: THE CANDIDATES







    __________________________________________________ _____________________________________






    It's been said by some that the Republicuntz and Demonclitz have an agreement: THEY WILL EACH BE ALLOWED TO RUN THINGS FOR EIGHT YEARS. Since 1992, we haven't really seen much to dissuade us from this belief.





    Nonetheless, we must remember that, when a President is REALLY unpopular, such as Jimmy Carter in 1980, or Bush Sr. in 1992, they do have a way of failing to get re-elected. ;-) Right now, Obongo seems to fall into the same category.





    But you wouldn't know it by the attitudes of the Republican Establishment. They seem to think that the Limp Chimp is still the Magical Nigger in the eyes of the Amerikan voter, and is virtually unbeatable. They whine about the lamestream Jewsmedia being in his corner. Hell, who even takes the lamestream Jewsmedia SERIOUSLY anymore? :-/ Only a bunch of old farts, over the age of 65, and they all seem to have turned against him over Obamacare. Unless he manages to win them all back by scaring them into thinking that the Republicuntz intend to take their Social Security away, it should really be a moot point. Controlling the media, at this point, is akin to owning a strip mall that's been vacant for four years. IT DON'T REALLY AMOUNT TO A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT. ;-( ;-D





    Yet they ceaselessly whine and wring their hands, and, as a result, they run like hell from any candidate who has the slightest whiff of conservatism about him. They seem to think the only way to beat Obama is by nominating a White version of him. As if the henhouse would be any safer if it was a weasel instead of a fox standing guard over it. :-/ ;-(





    WELL, BELIEVE ME, PEOPLE, MITT ROMNEY IS JUST SUCH A WEASEL, AND HE'S THE CLOSEST THING TO OBAMA IN A WHITE SKIN I'VE EVER SEEN!!! AND THE PARTY ESTABLISHMENT *WILL* SHOVE HIM DOWN ALL OF OUR THROATS UNLESS WE STOP THEM!!! AND, GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE WRONG!!! ROMNEY *WILL NOT* BEAT OBONGO!!! WHY SHOULD HE? WHO BUT AN UPPER-CRUST NEW ENGLAND RACIST WOULD VOTE FOR A "WHITE OBAMA" WHEN THEY COULD SIMPLY RE-ELECT THE BLACK ONE THEY'VE ALREADY GOT??? THINK ABOUT IT!!! WHAT BLOODY DAMN SENSE WOULD IT MAKE??? :-/ ;-(





    If you expect the Amerikan sheople to vote a sitting President out of office, you have to give them an ALTERNATIVE. Where is the Ronald Reagan to Obongo's Jimmy Carter? Well, I don't know, but MITT ROMNEY SURE AS HELL AIN'T IT!!! ;-( :-/ Newt Gingrich might be a reasonable facsimile. At least you can't say he's not different. ;-;-) Gingrich and Obongo are as different as Charles Manson and Don Corleone. Obongo and Romney are as different as a black lab and a yellow lab. Nothing separates them but pigmentation. ;-(





    Had there been a stronger candidate to challenge Romney, early on, we wouldn't be in this mess today. If Donald Trump had gotten in the race, Romney would probably be in Michelle Bachmann's position right now: About to drop out of the race, after getting his ass handed to him in Iowa. :-D But, no, his pwecious widdle TV show was more important. :-./ Thanks a lot, douchebag!!! :-(





    As for Bachmann herself, I knew the uppity little bitch wasn't ready for prime time when, after being asked by Chris Wallace if she was "a kook", she just stood there looking shocked, wounded, and outraged for almost a minute, as if she were the Queen Mother, and had just had her face slapped by an unruly drunk. :-O :-0 :-/ And this was back in July. I think that, when the history books are written, they will say that her high water mark was winning the Iowa Straw Poll, back in August. My guess is she will bow out shortly after coming in last in her supposed "home state" tonight. Good riddance. ;-(





    Rick Perry also quickly proved himself to be a potential albatross. He proved to be the human equivalent of a spiffy-looking used car that simply won't start, not even in the lot, and not even for the salesman. Shocked as the anti-Romney coalition was when he called them "heartless" that late September night, their gasps of disbelief were quickly followed by sighs of relief that they had, at least, managed to dodge that bullet. ;-D Some are saying he may still manage to make a comeback. I doubt it myself, but, if he does, it'll simply serve the fickle conservawhores right for turning on Gingrich (More on him, in a bit, I promise. ;-) Much more.) just when they seemed to have chosen him as their Champion and Future Weasel-Slayer. If you actually prefer shit-for-brains to sleaze, then you truly deserve what you get. ;-(





    Then there's Horny Herman Cain, who proved to be just another dirty, rapin' jigaboo on the make. :-/ :-( Thankfully, the media caught it in time, forcing the Great Rape Ape to drop out of the race. God help the Tea Party movement if they had hitched their wagon to that little shit-encrustulated stump. :-O :-0 :-/ They would've become the laughingstock of the whole country.;-(





    Finally, in the wake of Cain's demise, the Tea Party/anti-Romney wing of the Party focused on Newt Gingrich. While having the most name recognition of any of the candidates, besides Romney, his campaign had begun quite unpromisingly, when Newt had foolishly attacked Paul Ryan's plan to reform Social Security right out of the gate. :-/ Most pundits immediately wrote him off as a result of this.





    By August, however, he had managed to score a few points in the debates, and his oratorical skills were really beginning to shine. A new image had begun to develop: One of Newt as the Kindly Old Uncle who tries to step in as the peacemaker, preventing a would-be "family feud" among the candidates. I was, frankly, rather skeptical of this new image, at first. "How in hell are you gonna win by being nice to your opponents?" I wondered. "It's never worked that way before." :-/ Nonetheless, in the short term, it seemed to have worked this time, and, when Cain imploded, there he was, and the conservatives soon turned to him as their champion.





    Alas, what a difference a few weeks can make. :-( :-/ It all started on Thanksgiving Week, when Fox News Channel, either merely to boost their ratings, or, more likely, to prove their loyalty to Romney, chose to make a story out of a non-story by seizing on a statement that Gingrich had made in the last debate, merely pointing out that it wasn't a good idea to deport illegal immigrants that had been in the country for twenty years or more. Rather than show the quote in context, they chose to use it as "proof" that Newt was "soft" on illegal immigration, while, by always playing Romney's cynically calculated pseudo-rebuttal after the quote, without questioning its authenticity or pointing out Romney's own record on the issue, they made Romney's cheap-ass semantics look like gospel truth, and Gingrich look like the heir-apparent to Rick Perry's Mantle Of Shame. :-/ :-( Regardless of what they will try to say in their manufactured campaign narrative, the FACT of the matter is that this, and nothing else, is what turned the tide against Newt. :-( SHOULD GINGRICH END UP DEAD IN THE WATER, YOU WILL FIND FNC'S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER THE CORPSE!!! ;-( (Much more on this in Part Two: The Media. ;-) )





    Immediately, Gingrich's surge came to a screeching halt. Before long, his opponents smelled blood in the water, and started circling around their potential prey. :-( Michelle Bachmann was the first to attack, claiming that Newt was "the farthest to the left" on immigration of any candidate in the field, which, quite obviously is a FLAT-OUT LIE. Rick Perry is the farthest to the left, wanting to use TAXPAYER FUNDS to pay for the college tuitions of wetbacks. Thankfully, her brazenly opportunistic tactic didn't help the LYING-ASS BITCH any. ;-(





    Ron Paul, on the other hand, was more effective. He put out a notoriously sleazy ad, pointing out every mistake Gingrich had ever made, often with video evidence to drive the point home. The tactic was succesful. By mid-December, Ron Paul was beating Gingrich in Iowa. Nationally, however, the attacks seemed to help Romney, rather than Paul, as the former surged ahead of Gingrich in nation-wide polls. By the time he got around to calling him "zany" and "a career politician" he was leading the polls in Iowa, as well, since the same people who had turned on Gingrich had now begun to turn on Paul.





    And this is the thing that never ceases to amaze me: The seeming SHEER STUPIDITY of the anti-Romney folks, in general. It's like they don't even CARE who their candidate is, so long as it's not Romney. :-/ Now, grant it, that's fine, in theory, if only they would STICK WITH ONE, instead of playing musical candidates, like a bunch of damn kindergarteners. :-(





    Actually, the game they seem to be playing is the one where you have to match the peg with the hole. You have a round hole and a round peg, a triangular hole and a triangular peg, a square hole and a square peg, and so on and so on. But the problem is, they have a round hole,---the hole of mass media approval,---and no round peg to fit it. Grant it, that's hardly a new problem for the Republicuntz. It's pretty much been the case since around 1933. :-/ But they didn't used to CARE. That's the thing. They simply ignored the media, and its sneering elitism, and tried to tailor their campaigns to please the AMERIKAN PEOPLE. As often as not they succeeded. Look at Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. All elected, at least once, and all HATED, despised by the media. But now everything's changed. Why? That's the question. WHY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE??? Why do they think they have to please the media to beat Obama? Why are they stupid enough to think they even CAN please the media, in the first place? That's the real question. Don't they realize that the media already HAS a candidate, and that his name is Barack Hussein Obama? :-/ He's the round peg!!! ;-( No one else will ever satisfy them. :-(





    So, what exactly is going on here? Well, it seems that, since nobody really likes any of the candidates in the field, they are simply experimenting, trying to determine which one they dislike the least. Grant it, this *IS* the weakest Republican field I've ever seen in my life, no doubt about it. Not one remotely normal, scandal-free candidate in the bunch. Not like in 2008, when you had Choirboy Huckabee, or 1996, when all the candidates, with the one exception of Pat Buchanan, were not only scandal-free, but so bland as to be downright boring. (Buchanan was, himself, scandal-free, so far as his personal life was concerned, but, like Ron Paul, this time around, it was his controversial opinions that ended up getting him into trouble.)





    Romney has the albatross of Romneycare around his neck. Gingrich has scandal after scandal, mistake after mistake, gaffe after gaffe. Ron Paul's foreign policy views simply make him unelectable as a Republican. Jon Huntsman is the most liberal of the bunch, and a former Obama employee. Good luck getting traction when you're Jon Stewart's favorite Republican. ;-( ;-D Herman Cain had his scandals, which, thankfully, forced him out of the race. Rick Perry is a dirty little beaner-lover in a beaner-hating party. Michelle Bachmann is, frankly, a flake, not to mention a liar. And, as for Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum, aside from his very name being a word for gay butt sex, he simply *CANNOT* win in the South. He's the wrong color and the wrong religion. We don't like Catholics down here any better than we like Mormons, and especially not Catholics the color of a diarrhea turd. ;-( ;-D So, I guess the erstwhile Republican voter figures he's pretty well fucked, and, for all I know, that might be the case. :-/





    OK. So you wanted Donald Trump to get in and he didn't? Understood. Decided Michelle Bachmann was too flaky to be a serious candidate? Fine. Couldn't get behind Rick Perry because he's a beaner-lover? Gotcha. But, damnit, you *SHOULD'VE* looked into the guy's record before you jumped on his bandwagon in the first place. Ditto Herman Cain. :-/ ;-(





    Grant it, the media, and, partcularly, Fox News Channel, bears a certain amount of the blame. THEY HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO VET THESE GUYS, AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT. Why? Maybe just because they didn't know and were too lazy to investigate. But I suspect another, frankly, more sinister possiblity: I THINK THEY *PURPOSELY* ALLOWED THOSE CANDIDATES TO GO UNVETTED, BECAUSE THEY WERE SECRETLY IN THE TANK FOR ROMNEY FROM THE GET-GO!!! :-( :-/ How in hell could they have simply LEFT OUT such an important little detail as the fact that Rick Perry used taxpayer funds to pay for the tuitions of illegal immigrants or that Herman Cain had a trail of bimbos as long as Bill Clinton's? Or are we to believe that they didn't know? Or that they didn't consider it important? All of these theories simply strain the bounds of crediblity. THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION, THEN, IS THAT THEY *KNEW* BUT CHOSE *NOT* TO TELL. Why? Either, A. Simply to boost their ratings by creating a "soap opera" scenario, which would leave erstwhile voters haplessly running from one candidate to another, or, B. To help Romney by purposely allowing fatally flawed candidates to enter the race against him. Of course, grant it, it COULD'VE been a combination of the two, but I really do believe the main motive was to help Romney. AND THE BASTARDS SUCCEEDED!!! :-( :-/





    But, damnit, you *SHOULD'VE* known about Gingrich and Paul!!! How in hell could you *NOT* have known??? Anybody who has followed Republican politics for the past four years *OUGHT* to bloody well know about them. God knows they've done plenty of debates with the other candidates, ever since April of last year. You had plenty of opportunties to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. Were you watching the debates with the sound down? Did you have cotton in your ears? WHAT THE FUCK?!!? :-/ :-(





    Clearly, either one of two things is going on: Either the voters are so disgusted by their choices this time around that they're simply throwing a childish temper tantrum, trying to avoid the inevitability of picking between the *ONLY* two serious candidates, ----namely GINGRICH and ROMNEY,----or, otherwise, they are simply behaving like a deer caught in the headlights of an SUV, terrified of what Obongo and his lapdog media will do to whichever candidate they pick. :-/ :-(





    If it's the first thing, then all I've got to say is this: TIME TO GET REAL, GUYS!!! ;-( This is not Oz. This is not Wonderland. This is not Narnia. This is *NOT* a world where Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum can win, simply because you silly little shit-for-brains want him to. This is the Disunited States Of Amerika. REPUBLICAN AMERIKA. Remember? THE ONE WHERE THE *SOUTH* ACTUALLY *MATTERS*!!! And he is *NOT* gonna win any states down here!!! Period. Paragraph, End of story. It is either GINGRICH or ROMNEY in the long run. Make up your damn minds. Eventually, you will *HAVE* to pick one or the other.





    If it's the latter, then get this clear: THERE IS *NO ONE* IN THE REPUBLICAN FIELD THAT WILL *EVER* SATISFY THE MEDIA!!! NO ONE, GET IT!!! There is no one they will be nice to, even be FAIR to. *WHOEVER* you choose, they will smear him, slander him, and attempt to destroy him. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. DEAL WITH IT, YA FUCKING CRYBABIES!!! Sheesh. :-/ You guys used to understand this, and just accept it as a fact of life. And, when you had the fire in the belly, you were able to work around this fact and WIN IN SPITE OF IT. Sure. GET ANGRY!!! Make a CAMPAIGN ISSUE out of it. "ANNOY THE MEDIA. ELECT GINGRICH." sounds like a winning slogan to me. ;-D But, for fuck's sake, don't just WHINE about it like a little two-year-old girl. :-/ :-( All that will win you is the CONTEMPT of the Amerikan electorate. ;-( The thing to do is to simply pick the candidate who best represents your values and interests, and will take the fight to the enemy, and STICK WITH HIM. Stand by him, no matter *WHAT* the gliberal Jewsmedia throws at him. THAT'S HOW YOU WIN. ;-) But don't waste your time trying to find Jesus Christ's long-lost younger brother, in order to satisfy the media, because, A. He doesn't exist, and, B. They wouldn't be satisfied with him, even if he did. ;-( For the last time, guys, THEIR CANDIDATE IS OBAMA!!! Got it???





    But, either way, IT'S TIME TO FACE REALITY. Like the old saying goes: "It's what you *GET* not what you *WANT* that makes you fat." Maybe you would've preferred a field that included Christie, Ryan, and Palin, as well as Donald Trump. Well, the fact of the matter is, YOU DIDN'T GET IT, so buck up and deal with it, for fuck's sake. :-( When life gives you lemons, you just have to learn to make lemonade. ;-(





    Honestly, as a TRUE conservative, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. :-/ Hell, it's not like you wanted a Pat Buchanan and the Party's trying to stick you with a Bob Dole. ;-( The only difference between the three candidates I listed above and three that actually did run this year seems to be a matter of mere personality. Chris Christie is every bit as much a fetus-frying, gun-grabbing, northeastern liberal RINO as Mitt Romney. It's just that Romney is more of a Guy Smiley, while Christie is more of an Oscar The Grouch, and, for some weird reason, there seems to be a faction of the Party that wants Oscar The Grouch this time around. :-/ As for Paul Ryan, what, besides ethnicity, really separates him from Rick Santorum? Nothing that I can see. I mean the guy's from ILLINOIS, for fuck's sake. The Land Of Lincoln and Obama. How conservative could he be? :-/ ;-( And the difference between Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? Well, once again, merely one of personality. The former spits, hisses, scratches and yowls until she gets her ass beat, and then cries "sexism" when she does, while the latter publicly pretends to be Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, while privately acting like Evita Peron, and still gets her ass beat. ;-( ;-D So, what's the difference? Just a pair of glasses, I guess. :-/





    The plain fact of the matter is that, for the past twelve years, the Party has been moving further and further to the LEFT. :-/ :-( Truth be told, it started heading in that direction much earlier,---way back in 1988,----when it picked Bush Sr., that RINO of RINOs, as its nominee, and he went on to become our first more-or-less-openly "gay" President. :-/ :-O :-0 :-( It took Pat Buchanan, and a period of four years (1992-96) to turn it around, but, though he never managed to win the nomination for himself, he succeeded in keeping his party pro-life, pro-gun, and, most importantly, anti-illegal immigration.





    All that changed, however, in 2000. Suddenly, with McCain Vs. Bush Jr., we had to choose between Trotskyite #1 and Trotskyite #2. :-/ :-( The media ran interference for them, positing the race as a choice between a "liberal" Republican (McCain) and a "conservative" Republican (Bush), when, in fact, there were *NO* meaningful differences whatsoever between them where foreign policy and illegal immigration were concerned. Hell, neither one of them would even come out for English as the official language!!! :-O :-0 :-/ :-( The only difference, really was one of style. McCain went out of his way to bash Christian Coalition members, Confederate flag-wavers, and White separatists within the Party, while Bush chose to simply promote himself without offending anybody.





    But, when Bush Jr., aka Dumbyass, got the nomination, he went on to become the most beaner-loving President in history, up to that point. :-( He was so far to the left on that issue that even his own Congress refused to go along with his vile little amnesty bill. Thankfully, it never passed.





    It was, perhaps, as a result of their triumph in the Congress, that the two main leaders of the opposition to that bill, Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, both chose to run for the Presidency in 2008. Tancredo's campaign failed to catch fire, though, and he had to drop out before the primaries. :-( Hunter stayed in a little longer, but, like Fred Thompson, had to drop out after South Carolina. Why did this happen? Well, the lamestream Jewsmedia and the La Raza types would have us believe it was because the Amerikan electorate simply didn't support them, but we all know that's a CROCK OF SHIT. ;-( It was Amerikan voters who had flooded the Capitol swtchboard with calls, demanding their representatives and senators defeat Bush's amnesty bill two years earlier, so why would they change their minds over a mere two years? :-/ They can't explain, and don't bother to try. Well, I happen to *KNOW* why!!! IT WAS BECAUSE OF RON PAUL!!! ;-(





    In case you don't remember, back in 2008, Ron Paul was the gliberal Jewsmedia's favorite Republican, simply because he opposed the Bush-created wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore, they focused on him like a laser beam, at the expense of all the other candidates, including Tancredo and Hunter. This would've been fine, of course, if Paul were as "liberal" on all the other issues as he was on foreign policy. Then he wouldn't have hurt Hunter or Tancredo one bit. They could've still claimed to be the most conservative candidates in the race, and, frankly, they would've been right. But, since Paul was in there pretending to be "Mr. Conservative", "Captain CONstitution" and "Mr. Anti-NWO", he just sucked all the attention away from them, to such an extent that most erstwhile conservative voters, be they Republican or independent, didn't even know they were running. :-( :-/ THIS IS JUST ONE *MORE* REASON TO HATE RON PAUL!!! :-( He *PURPOSELY* helped to push the Party farther to the left!!! :-/ ;-(





    THINK ABOUT IT GUYS!!! Remember how the media covered Pat Buchanan after he won the New Hampshire Primary? Suddenly he was the second coming of Adolf Hitler. :-/ ;-( Contrast that to how they covered Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, and, for that matter, his 2012 campaign, up until very, very recently. Pat Buchanan was a "racist", a "homophobe", and an "anti-Semite". Ron Paul, holding the same position on every issue but one, is none of these things. Anybody smell a rat yet? ;-( :-/ COME ON, GUYS!!! IT IS *NOT* THE ANTI-ISRAEL THING!!! Ron Paul is every bit as anti-Israel as Pat Buchanan ever was. Yet the only person who *EVER* calls him on it is Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel. Everybody else in the otherwise RABIDLY Zionist media gives him a pass. Why is that? Because of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, that's why!!! :-( ;-( That's the bottom line, right there. Pat Buchanan: Rabidly pro-gun. Ron Paul: Rabidly pro-gun. Pat Buchanan: Rabidly pro-life. Ron Paul: Rabidly pro-life. Pat Buchanan: Opposes foreign wars, foreign aid, the United Nations, and the New World Order in general. Ron Paul: Ditto. Pat Buchanan: Opposes all illegal immigration, and even wants a moratorium on legal immigration. Ron Paul: Wants open borders. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE!!! :-( ;-(






    Because Pat Buchanan stood up for his race and his nation, opposing the endless flood of non-White immigration into this country, he was demonized and called a "racist" a "Klansman" and a "Nazi". Because Ron Paul fails to do so, he is hailed as a Champion Of The Right. A phony champion of the right is what he really is. Every bit as phony as that half-kike, Barry Goldwater, who damn near Wacoed Amerikan conservatism, back in 1964. Every bit as phony as that KIKESS OF KIKESSES, "Ayn Rand", aka Alice Rosenbaum, who is his political hero. ;-(





    I believe that Ron Paul is a media Trojan Horse, ---a Manchurian Candidate of sorts, ---that the Powers That Be have paid off to muddy the waters about what conservatism really is. :-/ :-( It's a tactic the Jews have been using for ages. At the beginning of the so-called "Cold War" between the Jew Ass Gay and the Soviet Jewnion, many people on the right began to discover the Jewish roots of Communism, and to cry out for the blood of the Self-Chosenites. Needless to say, this sent a panic through their ranks. ;-D So, what to do? Well, it didn't take them long to arrive upon a solution: They would set up the John Birch Society as a false front, a phony "anti-Communist" organization, in order to siphon off support from LEGITIMATE anti-Communist groups, that wanted to nip the problem in the bud by digging it out by its kosher roots. ;-( Unforunately, and to our great dismay, the tactic was a smashing (I should say opposition-smashing. :-/ ) success. :-( Now, in the wake of Pat Buchanan, they've created a phony "Anti-NWO" candidate,---a watered-down, deracinated, Jew-approved "America Firster" in the form of Ron Paul. And, by taking attention away from the *TRUE* conservative candidates, ---Hunter and Tancredo,---he managed to push the Party further to the left. :-/ :-(





    Now all of his opponents CLAIM to oppose illegal immigration, to one degree or another, but, in fact, *NOT ONE* OF THEM HAS A CONSISTENT RECORD OF OPPOSING IT!!! :-( Not one!!! Score another one for Uncle Hymie. ;-( :-/





    Now that, my dear Mouseketeers, is something worth getting angry about. ;-( If you were all angry about THAT, it MIGHT make a little sense. But, no, you're just mad because your pwetty widdow poysonalities didn't get to appear on the Magic Box and dazzle everybody with their supposed charm and charisma. That's what the Media has reduced you to: A bunch of goddamned SPECTATORS, sitting in the bleachers, shaking their pom-poms, and enjoying the whole spectacle. "WIN, WIN, WIN!" "BEAT OBAMA!" "Yeah, team!!!" "Issues be damned!" Pretty petty, guys. Pretty fucking petty. ;-(





    So, no, you don't have anyone to vote for that a TRUE conservative would be willing to have their fingerprints on, but, shit, you don't even seem to CARE about that, in the first place. Now, as far as ELECTABILITY is concerned, I'll admit (and already have admitted, for that matter) it's a pretty sorry field. Nothing like 2008, when you had FOUR candidates that were considered "Establishment" enough to get the nomination, and even the pundits didn't have a clue which one of the four it was gonna be: Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or McCain. In the end, they chose the weakest of the lot, and we all know the rest. ;-( This time around, we've only got TWO: Gingrich and Romney.





    Now let's compare and contrast the two, shall we? ;-) Newt Gingrich is from the Confederate State of Georgia. Mitt Romney is from the People's Republic Of Massachusetts. 'Nuff said. ;-D Gingrich presided over the most successful Congress in recent memory, in which he managed to drag William Lucifer Clinton along, kicking and screaming, into cutting both taxes and spending, and block-granting the welfare program back to the states. Romney couldn't even keep Planned Parenthood out of Romneycare or stand up to his state's Supreme Court on the issue of "gay marriage". :-/ ;-( Gingrich is used to media hatred, and, if anything, seems to THRIVE on it. Romney grabbed the leg of Fox News Channel's Bret Baier, like a two-bit faggot, just because he dared to ask him about his own record, and, after the broadcast, chased him down and gave him a good tongue-lashing. God only knows what he'll do when the HOSTILE media sets its sites on him. Probably piss himself. :-O :-0 ;-(





    GINGRICH VS. OBAMA = "THE THRILLA IN MANILA".
    ROMNEY VS. OBAMA = HOMO KABUKI DANCE.





    In short, Romney is a Massachusetts LIBERAL who never had an original thought in his life, can't give a speech without looking at a teleprompter, and has a glass jaw. Sound familiar? :-/ ;-/ Come on, people!!! HE'S OBAMA IN A WHITE SKIN!!! If he gets elected, he will do EXACTLY what the gliberal Jewsmedia tells him to do. His main goal in life will be making Jon Stewart happy, so he won't say anything bad about him on his little fake news show. And if us shitkickers out in flyover country don't like it, oh well. Small price to pay for the adulation of the Jewsmedia. ;-( And, of course, it *WON'T* work, anymore than it did for Bush Sr., that other soul-less media whore from the northeast, but he won't care. Better one crumb from his kosher Master's table than all the deep-fried twinkies in Iowa. Yeah, go right ahead, you fucking COWARDS, you DIRTY LITTLE WHORES that only care about winning!!! You'll get the kosher bitch-slap you deserve in the end!!! ENJOY THE DEATH CAMPS, MAGGOTS!!! ;-(





    Now, the fact of the matter is, the Powers That Be, the same Powers That Be that are trying their damnedest to shove Romney down your throat, for the very reasons that I've listed above, are *TERRIFIED* of Gingrich. Why? Well, for the same reason they were terrified of Obama in 2008. While he's technically "Establishment", he ain't that Establishment. ;-) He doesn't follow orders very well. He prefers to think and act for himself, whenever possible. And this causes a lot of problems for them.





    More troubling than anything, from their point of view, is the fact that he talks so frankly and bluntly about the issue of RACE. He talks about niglets on welfare, and says that they'd be better off mopping the floors and scrubbing the toilets of the public schuls they attend, therefore "earning" the money the taxpayers sent them. Statements like that won't go unnoticed if it looks like he's about to get the nomination. The niggers will take to the streets, looting and burning, and THAT WILL START THE RACE WAR!!! :-D





    Even if I'm wrong, and they don't rise up right away, if he gets the nomination, he's gonna wipe the floor with Obama's nappy head in those debates, and that'll ratchet up the racial tension, at the very least. On election night, if it looks like Gignrich is about to win, they *WILL* rise up then, because, hell, WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO LOSE??? Think about it!!! ;-D They've tasted power, but now they're being asked to give it up. Would *YOU* do it, if you were in their shoes? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd go out fighting, is what I'd do.




    And the Powers That Be know it, too. That's why they're so scared of Gingrich. They understand that, historically, riots and civil unrest have broken out, not when the situation seemed most hopeless for the niggers, --in which case they would simply drink and drug themselves into oblivion,--but, rather, when the niggers had tasted a little power, but hadn't managed to hold on to it. The Watts Riots, for example, happened not long after the assassination of Malcolm X, and we all know what happened after ZOG took out Martin Lucifer Koon. ;-( ;-D





    But let's look at the very worst case scenario, where Gingrich is concerned. Let's say that none of these things happen, and he's elected without incident. (A rather ludicrous proposition, in my estimation. :-/ ;-( ;-D) The people who elected him will expect him to actually DO SOMETHING, rather than simply "preside over the decay" as Gingrich stated, regarding Romney, last Tuesday night. They're gonna expect him to do some creative problem-solving. To be the Amerikan Mussolini, if that's what it takes. As opposed to Romney, who would just sit there like James Buchanan, riding his dildo, while the country falls apart. And, should he fail to do so, THERE WILL BE REVOLUTION!!! And that's the *WORST* case scenario!!! :-D ;-D





    They say that independents are gonna decide the election this November. Well, I'm hear to tell you one thing right now: NON-VOTING INDEPENDENTS *WILL NOT* DECIDE IT, AT ANY RATE!!! And the vast majority of self-identified "independents" fall into that category. What they *ACTUALLY* are is a bunch of apolitcal, apathetic, shit-for-brains LOSERS who rarely vote, and, when they do it, generally break towards the incumbent, simply because his name is the most familiar. So, guys, if *THEY* end up deciding things, we're fucked anyway, WHOEVER we pick. ;-( ;-D And that's 80% of your so-called "independents" right there. In reality, it's only 20% of self-indentified independents that actually vote on a regular basis. And most of these are pissed-off former Republicans, who left the party in '92 or 2000, because they thought it was moving too far to the left. They like Romney about as much as they'd like a root canal through their rectums. ;-( ;-D The rest of them are disaffected Clinton Democrats, who aren't particularly enamored with him, either. Grant it, they'll probably never vote for Gingrich, but there's no guarantee they would go for Romney. More likely, they'll just stay home. That's what a lot of us former Buchanan Republicans do. ;-)





    But the bottom line is, it's not a "who" that's gonna decide this election. It's a "what". And that "what" is the ECONOMY. If it turns around by November, Obama will get the credit, and be re-elected. If not, he loses, NO MATTER WHO THE REPUBLICANS PICK!!! So, enough of the bloody cowardice, guys!!! Enough of the trying to please the media. It's Obongo's race to lose, and it's a zero-sum game. The only thing that decides it will be the ECONOMIC NUMBERS, come November.





    Gingrich's only hurdle to clear will be GETTING THE NOMINATION in the first place. Here's how it stands with the competiton: Mitt Romney won Iowa, albeit with only eight votes, and will, most likely, win New Hampshire very easily, being the next thing to a "native son", coming from Massachusetts and all. So much for New Hampshire being "contrarian" or the "undo Iowa" state. Maybe when THEY don't have a dog in the race, but not this time. Contrarian my derrierian. ;-( They're every bit as regionalist up there as we are here in the South, but I'm sure they turn up their WASPy little noses at us, and say how much "better" they are than us. :-( Fucking cocksuckers. He may even go on to win South Carolina, too, as corrupt as the Party machine is down there, but, if he does, FUCK SOUTH CAROLINA!!! As far as I'm concerned, they've forfeited their place in the Confederacy.





    Rick "Man On Dog" Santorum officially became The Magical Figger (More on that in Part Three: The Voters.) when he almost won Iowa, but he'll get his butt handed to him in New Hampshire. Right now, he's leading Gingrich in South Carolina, but those numbers can change, and I believe they will. Since Gingrich and Santorum are both Catholics, Gingrich will have to remind the voters that he was born in the neighboring state of Georgia, and shares their values, unlike the Pennsylvania-born Santorum. He can also subtly remind them of the racial difference between him and Santorum, by pointing out, --ever-so-subtly, of course,--the fact that he only became a Catholic later in life, which will remind the smarter ones that he was actually born a Protestant, unlike his diarrhea-hued dago competitor. ;-D





    Nonetheless, the hardcore anti-Catholic Bob Jones University types will all break towards Rick Perry instead, considering Gingrich a "sell-out". (Which, in fact, he is. It's not unusual for White Southerners to convert to Catholicism once they cross a certain economic threshold. It's a kind of religious caste system that we have down here. Just like up in New England, except in reverse. ;-) ) I believe it will be Rick Perry's last stand, though. At best, he will come in fourth, and will drop out afterwards.





    Who knows whether Gingrich will actually beat Romney in South Carolina or not, but he pretty well has to beat Santorum. I don't much see how he stays in it, otherwise, since all the brownskins in Florida will break towards the Magical Figger, and it'll be a long, hard slog until he finds himself in friendly territory again. :-/ I don't know how he'd be able to do it, financially. :-(





    Most of the pundits say that Jon Huntsman will bow out after New Hampshire, after coming in fifth, as they expect him to do. We'll see. Only he knows what his finances are looking like these days. If not, he may win some states in the northwest, once they roll around, as I expect Ron Paul will probably do in the southwest. He's certainly no threat to Gingrich in the South, though.





    That only leaves Ron Paul, who, though he will probably stay in until the end, doesn't stand a chance of winning a single state before Super Tuesday. So, at least Gingrich won't have to worry about him, at any rate.





    All the others, "Tiny" Tim Pawlenty, "Horny" Herman Cain, Gary "The Fairy" Jewnson, and Michelle "Little Miss Migraine" Bachmann have dropped out, all before Iowa except Bachmann.





    So, what does it look like, heading into the future? Well, basically, Romney finds himself in the same situation that Rotten Clit found herself in in 2008, except with more candidates. He's got that whole "inevitability" factor working against him, and, as Dick Morris has stated, a long race actually helps him. His worse nightmare, at this point, is a two-person race, particularly between himself and Newt Gingrich. The best thing for him is for as many candidates to stay in it for as long as possible. Yet, drop out they do, and drop out they will, two possibly within the next couple of weeks. With Huntsman and Perry out of the picture, Ron Paul won't be much of a factor, at least not for awhile. Since coming in third in Iowa, the media has pretty much moved on. All the real action will be between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. And the test will be whether Gingrich can manage to knock Santorum out of the way, and get back into second place again.





    If Newt could win South Carolina, that would be great. It would sure put some wind in his sails. If not, he at least has to clean up on Super Tuesday, winning all the Southern states, at any rate. I'm not sure when Ohio votes, but it would sure help him to win that, too. If he could lock it up in South Carolina or Florida, narrowing the race down to two men, he would pretty much have Romney on the ropes, but I'm sure the evil little fucker would stay in there until the Convention, just like Hillary, and it might even come down to a brokered convention. :-/ ;-( Unfortunately, I don't really see that happening, anyway.





    But, if this one's gonna be a "long haul" as I suspect it will, then the only thing that Newt can really do that will ENSURE a loss for him, is if he never wins a single state. As long as he wins as many or more states as his closest non-Romney competitor, (which, as the count stands now, is ZERO.) he's got a shot.




    We shall see what we shall see. :-) -----Charles Gavan O'Lanahan 1/8/3012.
    Last edited by Jack; 01-26-2012 at 09:49 PM.
    IF YOU STILL LOVE AMERIKA, YOU'RE A NIGGER-LOVER!!! ---CGO. 1/20/'09.



    "Lay down your silver and your gold
    I am a man who won't be sold
    And even when my heart grows cold
    I'll curse your evil stranglehold."---Horslips, from "Trouble With A Capital 'T'", 1977.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,174

    Default Mitt Romney And Bain: Fair?

    Mitt Romney And Bain: Fair?
    by Karl Denninger


    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=200506
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=5077#post5077



    Is this a fair attack or not?

    It's hard-hitting, but is it correct?

    To a large degree, yes it is.

    Let's talk about what Bain, and other "private equity" firms really do. Their task -- how they make money -- is to find companies that are "inefficient" and turn them into more-efficient entities. Their reward for doing so is that they take some of the spoils for themselves -- frequently as much as a quarter of the value in the firm or more.

    Efficiency is not a bad thing, and driving out inefficiency is, on balance, good. The problem is how that efficiency comes about.

    We live in a world where our government has conspired with banks to make cross-border arbitrage profitable. Very profitable. The result has been the evisceration of our working-class population -- the vast majority of America. Our manufacturing has been made "more efficient" by moving it to China, where people labor under effective slave conditions -- conditions so good that recently a group of employees at Foxconn threatened to commit suicide en-masse.

    But it doesn't end there. The abuse of leverage makes possible the taking of more and more debt by firms that then gets paid out to these private-equity raiders. The putative argument for this sort of structure is that the debt will help grow the company and thus everyone will benefit.

    But it doesn't always work out that way.

    KB Toys is one example outlined in that video that is truthful. KB was larded up with debt and ultimately collapsed under the load. Yet Bain made a monstrous profit on what was, objectively, a failed transaction.

    This sort of "strip it and steal it" model is entirely legal. But the question is not whether something is legal -- it is whether it's a model we ought to encourage and base our economy upon, and whether someone who has practiced this destruction of American jobs and the offshoring of capital should be elected President.

    The answer, quite simply, is no.

    Leverage outlines a whole host of lawful offenses in this regard. They are all enabled and in fact made profitable by the explicit actions of government. Government's role is to protect the rule of law, and yet when it comes to trans-national arbitrage what's legal in one place may not be in another. The exploitation of workers and destruction of the environment may be perfectly legal in China, but here in America we made both unlawful. This is where government has a proper role via the imposition of tariffs and imposts, which so-called "free traders" oppose. In point of fact, however, this is not "free trade" at all -- it's free and legal abuse that firms like Bain make a huge amount of money exploiting.

    It is not possible for me to endorse or support a candidate that believes in and has personally profited from this sort of arbitrage. That something is legal does not make it right. It is lawful, for example, for 10 year olds to be sold into sexual slavery in some nations, and yet we recognize this as an unspeakable evil and in fact have a Federal Law on the books that states that if you travel to those nations for that purpose you will, if caught, be sentenced to prison.

    Our labor and environmental laws are either just and defensible or they are not. If they are not then we should repeal them. If they are then we must defend them. Since we cannot force other nations to adhere to our model of environmental and labor law, our only means of enforcement of our standards in this regard is via tariffs.

    There are those who say that it's unfair to penalize Bain, and Romney, because they exploited a perfectly-legal means of arbitrage, or that Romney left Bain before some of these events occurred. But that something is lawful does not make it right, and the leadership of an entity defines what it is and does.

    The willful and intentional destruction of American industry and jobs may be legal but it is a fair question as to whether you want a man who was actively engaged in this, and became wealthy doing so, to be President. especially when any denouncement you make of an entity's actions wait until after you declare your candidacy and make off with the money gained from those practices.

    During my time in business I have had many opportunities to take actions that were legal but I found distasteful. It would have been easy to justify those actions by saying that there was nothing legally wrong with them, but that's not how I live. Money is how we keep score in a capitalist society, but when money becomes the only means of keeping score then we've got a problem, because rich and powerful people can always bribe their way to redefinition of the law to suit their pocketbooks.

    I believe we need, and should demand, a higher standard in our elected officials.

    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  6. #6
    Pigg NEWTon's Avatar
    Pigg NEWTon is offline Totally Without Shame Junior Member Pigg NEWTon is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Up the jews' asses
    Posts
    2

    Default The [S]Election is so much better when Da Mittens is Cryin'

    The [S]Election is so much better when Da Mittens is Cryin'


    http://www.whitenationalist.org/foru...ted=1#post5132



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p64FvyOBj4


    http://mamzers.org/useful/audio/TMT/...ays-better.mp3

    I was hornier than Kunta Kinte at a Victoria's Secret shoot
    That night I strolled on into my mudshark sister's projects flat lookin' for love.
    It had been a while.
    In fact, three hundred and sixty-five had come and went
    since on Klan of Mamzers spying for ZOG on Ron Edwards.
    I had picked up this shitskin that was sweatin' gallons
    through a pair of Daisy Duke cut-offs and one of those Fruit Of The Loom tank-tops.
    Well, that night I lost myself to nigger blubber lips,
    paper-bag shitskin and slant gook eyes.
    Name was Bryan.

    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Well I find it's quite a thrill
    Slanderin' pore Mittens against itz will
    The [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'

    Well, faster than you can say, "Sally Hemmings",
    my niglet nieces come up to me and starts kneadin' my balls
    like hard-boiled eggs in a tube sock.
    Said her name was Sheniqua and I said, "Well that's a coincidence darlin',
    'cause I was just thinkin' about humpin' you like Massa Thom."
    Well she smiled, had about as much teeth as a Jack-O-Lantern,
    and I went on to tell her how I would wear her tang like a mask
    as I do my little kooky dance.
    And then she told me to shush.
    I guess she could sense my desperation.
    'Course, it's hard to hide a hard-on when you're shaped like a beach ball.

    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Well I find it's quite a thrill
    Slanderin' pore Mittens against itz will
    The [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'

    So the jewsmedia's goin' on about how them debates can make all my fantasies cum true.
    So I says, "Even this one I have where Prick Santorum
    is jackhammering Mittens Romney in the doo-doo hole
    with a lawn dart as Ron Paul yaps some LibberToon shit
    about eliminating the Fed and no more foreign wars
    against them shitskinned Persian ragheads?"
    Well, six million ZOGbux in campaign coontributions from them fucking kikes six days later
    I'm slappin' my goy nuts in hymietown if you know what I mean.
    Got to nail Missus Newt Number Four or Five.
    Heh. I forget which.
    I have to admit it was even more of a turn-on
    when I found out she still was munching down on kosher cock.

    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Well I find it's quite a thrill
    Slanderin' pore Mittens against itz will
    The [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'

    Day or so had passed when I went to the SAIC's,
    There I was browsin' through the latest issue of "$PLC",
    when I saw Sheniqua starin' at me from the back of a milk carton.
    Well, my heart just dropped.
    So, I decided to do what any good ZOGbot would.
    You can not imagine how difficult it is to hold a half gallon of moo juice
    and knead the one-eyed gopher when your mumps nuts
    expands while driving back to the projects.
    I never thought missing niglets could be so sexy.
    Did I say that out loud?

    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Yes, the [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'
    Well I find it's quite a thrill
    Slanderin' pore Mittens against itz will
    The [s]election is so much better when Da Mittens is cryin'

    Absolutely Without Shame

    Serving ZOG by Serving Myself Without Remorse or Shame Since 1979.


  7. #7
    Pigg NEWTon's Avatar
    Pigg NEWTon is offline Totally Without Shame Junior Member Pigg NEWTon is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Up the jews' asses
    Posts
    2

    Default Newt Gingrich: I Will Help Israel Attack Iran

    Newt Gingrich: I Will Help Israel Attack Iran


    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...l-attack-iran/
    http://www.whitenationalist.org/foru...=5141#post5141

    Iran

    Newt Gingrich openly tells CNN that he wants to go to war with Iran for the benefit of Israel. This is not a fringe conspiracy theory. It is the foreign policy position of the winner of the South Carolina Republican Primary.

    Note: Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas billionaire who donated $5 million dollars to Newt Gingrich’s failing presidential campaign, is the Jewish string puller behind his sudden resurgence. He is also involved in all kinds of radical Zionist causes. This guy pulled his money out of AIPAC for being too soft on the Palestinians.




    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBe1z...layer_embedded

    .
    .


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS...layer_embedded


    I'll suck Bibi's cir-cum-cum-sized kike cock!!!

    Absolutely Without Shame

    Serving ZOG by Serving Myself Without Remorse or Shame Since 1979.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In the South, where he wants it made
    Posts
    748

    Default Gary Johnson – Libertarian True Believer Traitor to Our People

    Gary Johnson – Libertarian True Believer Traitor to Our People


    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...to-our-people/
    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/for...=5297#post5297
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...620#post348620
    http://previousdissent.com/forums/sh...ed=1#post27488
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=6202#post6202



    Libertarian True Believer - Rainbow Nation.... Plus Mass Muslim Immigration

    .

    New Mexico

    We’ve introduced OD readers to Wilmot Robertson’s brilliant analysis of America’s political and cultural racial wars (The Dispossessed Majority) listing 5 types of White American traitors:
    .

    1) Pussyfooters (most common)
    2) Gracchites (rich elitists championing the NW masses)
    3) Trucklers (lower class Whites going with the NW flow for wealth and power)
    4) Old Believers/True Believers (spreading THE TRUTH to bring peace and prosperity to the entire world!)
    5) Proditors (violently obsessed with destroying their/our own people)
    .

    Today we will focus on #4 – the True Believer, in this case the Libertarian True Believer Gary Johnson. In case you haven’t heard, or like 98% of Americans – you just don’t care – former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President of the United States. Though Gary Johnson’s 100% Libertarian program was a big flop in the 2012 GOP Presidential primaries, Johnson is running 3rd party for President in November ; Johnson wants to spread the one, true Libertarian gospel of:

    free markets, free trade, less government or better yet, no government as individuals should be free to choose the goods and services and personal lifestyle they want, free of any collectivist loyalty or obligations to some group. Group “collectivism” is supposedly very bad and racial group collectivism is supposedly the world’s greatest evil and America’s greatest sin.

    Under Gary Johnson’s Libertarian new American world – fundamentalist Muslim immigrants from Pakistan will somehow live in peace and harmony in our United States with homosexual marriage equality activists – as massive immigration from the entire world will be a great positive to our country, once we scale back the welfare state and end government regulation of environmental laws, labor laws.

    Occidental Dissent readers should suspect that a Libertarian true believer like Gary Johnson would have crazy, treasonous views on immigration – and his Playboy Magazine interview confirms – Johnson is an immigration loony!
    .
    Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers

    Q: What is your view of the immigration issue?
    A: Hispanics who immigrate care about their families like other Americans care about their families. They’re living in poverty in Mexico and can come to the US and do a lot better.

    Q: By–according to some–taking away jobs.
    A: They work the lowest-paying jobs. And they are taking jobs that other Americans don’t necessarily want. They’re hardworking people who are taking jobs that others don’t want. That’s the reality.

    Q: Would you open the borders and make it easier to immigrate legally?
    A: My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.

    Q: Many Americans fear the flood of immigrants that would follow.
    A: They would become taxpayers. They’re just pursuing dreams—the same dreams we all have. They work hard. What’s wrong with that?


    Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , Jan 1, 2001
    .


    What a $*&%*#(@#*!

    Since True Believer Gary Johnson has renounced all cultural and racial loyalty to our White, Anglo American people, he assumes that the invading millions of low IQ, unskilled Mestizo Mexicans will do the same, instead of promoting the power of their group, LaRaza – block voting to elect a Mexican like Antonio Villaraigosa mayor of Los Angeles.

    True Believers differ from Old Believers in that they aren’t trying to turn back the clock and restore some fallen White American world of the past. Most Libertarian True Believers are supportive of the cultural/social changes of the 1960s and they don’t want to restore the 1950s, bring back Christian patriarchy, much less racial segregation. How do we deal with Libertarian True Believers? Don’t waste your time trying to argue or use reason with these types – as they insist they have a monopoly on reason (Libertarian REASON Magazine). Instead, it’s just best to ignore them – DON’T FEED THE LIBERTARIANS, certainly don’t let them come in to your home or THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE. It’s best to let Nature take its course with these types – with some luck, they’ll get caught on the same airplane with some Islamic Jihadist, or die in an automobile crash with some DUI Mestizo immigrants.

    .

    Comments:


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan
    July 9, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    There are many responsible, decent White gay people. My neighbor is one – though I wish he didn’t fly that Rainbow flag.

    One point I try to make over and over is that White Libs can’t have it both ways – can’t have White Western ideas of personal liberty with women’s rights, gay right and AND also support mass Muslim immigration, the two are mutually exclusive. The Dutch Libs led by Geert Wilders understand this simple truth, but in our wacked out PC, multi cult, BRA the American Left tries to make NW Muslim immigrants in to their Lib/Min victim group alliance to gang up on White Gentiles/White Conservatives/White Christians – and it actually does result that the NW Muslim immigrants vote for Obama, but the multi cult alliance just doesn’t hold.

    In such situations I support inciting the NW Muslim immigrants – put out propaganda that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a queer along with being a pedophile.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by TabuLaRaza
    July 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    L. is supposed to be based on individual rights. What if the trash coming in don’t believe in rights? What if they openly announce they want to establish theocracy? Does anyone have the “right” to entry even if they openly say they hate the West? And so on. Do Libertarians (modern version) admit that their view is IDENTICAL to the NWO?

    btw There was a conference held by the Journal of Libertarian Studies (1998). Only one- joo Walter Block- came out in favor of full open borders.

    When they hop over the fence won’t they be landing on someone’s private property and therefore be trespassing?

    The whole movement has been joo infiltrated for three decades.

    There is no one libertarian view. Rothbard favored the Bell Curve and wanted voluntary separation (racial).

    The basic idea is- society should be voluntary. That is it. This stuff about “only individuals exist” was appended without any reason. I want society to be voluntary. I and my White friends have the right to voluntarily avoid niggers and jews. Communities may be established and FENCED. The unwanted, trying to enter, would be trespassing. It is possible to have group property. (Gated, contractual communities, for openers).

    The late libertarian John Hospers- “The Case Against Open Borders”:

    http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_3.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by Anon
    July 9, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    “A: They would become taxpayers. They’re just pursuing dreams—the same dreams we all have. They work hard. What’s wrong with that?”

    Q:Whats to stop them from just voting for all the welfare programs that they like so much?
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by jack ryan
    July 9, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunter Wallace
    July 9, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Gary Johnson is a nutty libertoon. Not exactly breaking news.
    Jack Ryan replies:

    True. The point of my post is to (nearly) complete all the examples of Wilmot Robertson’s White Traitors – the 4th category is “True Believers”.

    White Americans like Gary Johnson go off the deep end and become “True Believers” – in this case, true believers in the cult of race denying Libertarianism.

    These Libertarian True Believers really do believe that hundreds of Millions of low IQ Mestizo Mexicans, Pakistani Muslims can come in to America, work hard and achieve the American dream and all these millions of new Americans from the 3rd World will make our country a better place and any problems associated with the arrival of tens of millions of these 3rd world people of color will be caused by too much government regulation, too high marginal tax rates etc.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by SnowDog
    July 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    So in your world it’s gang vs gang, Muslims vs Christians, gays vs straights? This promotes nothing but violence and the constant fighting between one group and another.

    Why not a world where we treat each other equally; where people are not used as a means to an end, but rather, are the end in themselves?
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Ryan
    July 9, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    Quote Originally Posted by SnowDog
    July 9, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    So in your world it’s gang vs gang, Muslims vs Christians, gays vs straights? This promotes nothing but violence and the constant fighting between one group and another.

    Why not a world where we treat each other equally; where people are not used as a means to an end, but rather, are the end in themselves?
    Because SnowDog – unless you are John and Yoko Ono – are multi, multi millionaires living in The Dakota on Central Park West in Manhattan – the wealthiest City in the world, you don’t have any chance of living this John Lennon “Imagine” world.

    The rest of us have to live in the….

    Real World.

    In the real world, there are real nations, different kinds of people, with really different ways of thinking, acting, working or (Jessie Jackson, Sharpton) not working, fighting, raping, rioting, conceiving 20 plus illegitimate children, killing, eating people.

    It’s just painfully obvious to any honest person living in the real world that the people living in Liberia, Haiti, Detroit, East St. Louis are living in different ways than say people in Japan or Switzerland or some nice, still all White upper middle class suburb of St. Paul Minnesota.

    The things that you say you want are only conceivable in White, Indo European countries or the highest, homogeneous areas of East Asia (Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore).

    If you think you are going to “Change the world” make the entire 3rd world think and act like tolerant, upper middle class White Liberals/Libertarians – you’re just not being realistic.

    Look what happened to the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia – our do gooder, feed the starting Somalian troops got shot down, mutilated dead US troops dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

    Are the Taliban live and let live? They blow up 1,000 year old Buddhist statues, pack soccer stadiums to cheer on the execution of women who dared show their faces in public. These NW Muslims are invading Europe, making once tolerant PC Dutch, Swedes consider supporting the extreme Nationalist Right.

    So how about joining the rest of us in . . . .

    The real world?
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by SnowDog
    July 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    You only have two ways to live and work with other people: you can treat them as moral equals, or you can conquer them before they conquer you. The first leads to voluntary cooperation. The second leads to gang warfare.

    Democracy is gang warfare incarnate. We tell ourselves, we need to protect our property and keep ourselves safe. So we create a government, which is the only institution we allow to take anyone’s property, for whatever reason, and in which we allow to enslave whomever it chooses, for whichever sundry purpose it finds. It’s not surprising that governments have killed more people in the 20th century than everyone else, put together, in all the previous centuries of civilization.

    It’s this inconsistency in our reasoning that we need to correct.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Playing Roots Backwards
    July 9, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    Well, Jack, if we had little or no government, wouldn’t it be left up to the locals to decide who gets to live in their city, town or neighborhood? Wouldn’t that create the opportunity to sort the whole country out so that the queers are all in places that don’t mind queers, and that the Blacks and Browns all move to areas where there isn’t a bounty on their ears?

    Sounds like a good deal to me.

    I can understand why a lot of Whites are concerned about Mestizos taking their jobs. The least intelligent two-thirds of American Whites have an average IQ of 92.5, whereas the Mestizos have an average IQ of 90. They are virtually interchangeable. That is why the corporate race-traitors endorse people like Romney and Obama who will never undermine their quest for maximum profits.

    Once again, without our huge central government, both our disreputable business boys and the Brown workers they crave could be subjected to re-education through any means the local folks decide upon.

    So I will be casting my worthless vote for Johnson. Little or no government is a pipe dream, but it’s a dream that doesn’t involve mongrels or Mormons.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by SnowDog
    July 10, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Some of you may be interested in this. It’s a libertarians solution to many problems that you share. If solutions are not decided with a federal, national, government, then they are solved locally. Here is a city of 100,000 people with business districts, industrial districts, neighborhoods, parks, lakes, etc., and there is no government. All rules are agreed upon by the landowners. The difference is that when a rule is broken, no one is threatened with violence. Because the rules are agreed upon by the landowners, then the landowner will get a notice in the mail, and the issue will be resolved in civil court.

    http://www.freemanch.com/the-woodlan...ut-government/

    It’s a libertarian solution, and it allows everyone to live in the environments they choose.



    The quality of people I am reaching is much higher than I ever did with a forum.
    I'm now at the top of the racialist intellectual community in the United States.
    I was a nobody when I ran The Phora.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,134

    Default Typpycull LibberToons -- (From 1995-98)

    Typpycull LibberToons -- (From 1995-98)


    http://whitenationalist.org/lindstedt/mostoonz.html
    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/for...=5298#post5298
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...624#post348624
    http://previousdissent.com/forums/sh...7489#post27489
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=6205#post6205

    X-Sender: smaf-toonians@cmsu2.cmsu.edu
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
    Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 08:59:58 -0700
    To: mlindste@clandjop.com
    From: typical libbertoons (smaf-toonians@cmsu2.cmsu.edu)

    Get over yourself!

    Haven't you realized you're the only person who thinks you have
    any sort of intelligence.

    -- Goofhead & Wuss


    .

    .

    I haven't heard from these fools for over a year.

    I sort of wonder what brought this on. Probably these
    SMAF-'Toonians read something critical on one of my many WWW pages
    as being critical of them. And so it was, although it didn't
    mention them by name, only by type.

    I can see by the e-mail address above that these people are
    living exactly the same way they did in Springfield, Missouri.
    The location may change, but they never do. Where they be --
    there be an outpost of sanctimonious white trash.

    For example, the wife is still seeking a degree to teach in
    publik skrules. Having no mind at all, they wish to get a job
    destroying the minds of innocent others in the public sector.
    They have no child of their own, not that it would matter if they
    did. Publik skrules are good enough if they offer employment.
    Yet they are LibberToons, concerned with smaller gubbnmint.
    And if that cannot be realized through a contraction of the
    public sector, it certainly can be fervently wished for while
    inhaling hallogenic clouds of blue smoke.

    Nor do these LibberToons have a privately owned Internet
    Service Provider. You see, when I knew them several years
    ago, they couldn't get a telephone in because they hadn't paid
    a $600+ telephone bill. They liked to make long-distance
    phone calls while stoned on their weed, but paying for the weed
    always came first before paying their justly contracted debts.

    One's first impression when meeting both of them is that
    they both are self-indulgent brain-dead dopers. All they talk
    about in poly-ticks is the necessity to legalize smokin'-dope.
    So much for the Decline of the West or the rise of the underclass
    in which they had staked out squatter's rights long ago. They'd
    vote for Pol Pot in a second upon upon name recognition alone,
    looking forward to the day when they could smoke a bale of marijuana
    for the price they now pay for an ounce. But they still wouldn't
    pay their phone bill with the extra money. The pocket change saved
    could be more purposefully spent in smoking as many bales as they
    used to spend smoking ounces. After all, first things first.

    They wanted to join up with a militia unit down in Springfield
    Missouri several years ago. While they were amicable enough, as
    long as they felt the aftereffects of the last stash, still it was
    obvious enough to all that they were dopers. Thus it became
    obvious that there were drawbacks to being an "open, public,
    citizens' militia." After all, these people seemed to have no
    firm sort of character of their own, only a dependent sort of
    mellowness. What would happen when they got busted by the police?
    After all, if it was obvious to us that these people were potheads,
    then signing up such witless herd-animals in the police food-chain
    could be a serious breach of operational security. We might as well
    invite the cops along for a training exercise with our "dangerous
    assault weaponry." Just as these LibberToons have their addictions
    which do not bear police scrutiny, creative gunsmithing is the curse
    of the militia classes. In the interests of all concerned we
    certainly didn't need to "Feed the Bears." Most militiamen don't
    have the monomaniacal interests in but one herb that these people
    had.

    Secondly, people who won't pay their phone bill and who
    don't have a car because of their consuming interests don't have
    money to buy a good military-style rifle and 200 rounds of
    ammunition. Even a good, used Chink-Army-issue SKS cost $80
    then and no telling how many ounces of good smokin'-dope that
    amount represented.


    So these Freedom Fighters, these killer-attack 'Toons, these
    Defenders of Liberty never took to the field with us militiamen, not
    even during the season that the wild sinsemilla was in full bud.

    Serves 'em right for telling us that they didn't believe in
    violence.


    So now they are in Warrensburg, at another kollidge, learning
    . . . . something or another. And still without a phone or a
    car or a gun. All their money in bongs. (I said bongs, not bonds.)
    Still looking like frumpy lower-lower-lower-middle-class losers.
    Still talking about legalizing smokin'-dope as the end&be-all
    of enlightened self-government. And probably still attracting
    the interest of the police.
    Oh well, having no interest in gainful employment and lacking
    intelligence enough to be publik skrul teechers, perhaps they
    can stick, like the shoemaker to their last -- and primary --
    sole means of support in an information age -- as informants.


    --Martin Lindstedt, Resistance Political Front
    Missouri Libertarian Candidate for u.S. Senator
    http://whitenationalist.org/lindstedt/ussenate.html



    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 07-10-2012 at 04:42 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In the South, where he wants it made
    Posts
    748

    Default Live Thread: Republican National Convention

    Live Thread: Republican National Convention


    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/201...al-convention/
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=6573#post6573

    Florida

    Update: Live commentary at @occdissent on Twitter.

    I just flipped on the television to the Republican National Convention in Tampa for the first time and there was some negress on the stage talking about how Amurrica is the last best hope of the earth.

    Note: It will be a slow night. I’ve already hit the gym this afternoon. I’m going to watch this tonight just for the lulz.



    .


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPGEC...layer_embedded

    .

    Posted on August 28, 2012 by Hunter Wallace




    The quality of people I am reaching is much higher than I ever did with a forum.
    I'm now at the top of the racialist intellectual community in the United States.
    I was a nobody when I ran The Phora.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts