Open thread on the Obama victory

I don’t understand the extreme hateful reaction towards Obama. He is not ideal but he has good positions on foreign policy and school choice. He is not unambiguously in favor of amnesty, unlike McCain. He is only half-black, East African for that matter, and we were bound to have a black president eventually, given blacks make up 10% of the US. The Democrats were due to win. Obama is very compromising and tolerant, to a fault. His hands are tied, because if he does anything to radical, he will provoke a white reaction.

Ajo is delusional. We were not bound to have a Black president (Obama is only half Black but identifies as Black) as, if the majority of White Americans were racially conscious, they would never elect one.

Obama will be a far Left disaster and is a disgrace to our country. A Democratic Congress will give the Magic Negro his way and will not check his behavior.

I don’t think Obama’s election was necessarily inevitable.The Media and a self-hating White population helped Obama. But the good news is that a majority of White voters actually voted for McCain, in I believer over 56%. Obama had less than 44% of the White vote.

What I really fear from Obama is a potential loss of free speech rights (especially on the internet), loss of gun rights, and even a possible military draft. In a military draft, we would see many of Obama’s White voters/supporters ironically drafted.

Not many on this thread are believing Christians. I am. From that vantage point, and as a race realist, here’s what I see. The American voting public will get the government they vote for. I know there are shades of grey here, i.e.: Americans vote in spending cutting Republicans, and get betrayed. In the main, however, there are clear, black and white differences. For all their faults, Republicans are not Barack Obama in the following ways. They are not closet Marxist/Socialists. They are not creepily trying to hide inner radicalism. They are not beholden to the loony left. They do not reject supply side economic reality, proven again and again from Kennedy to Reagan to Bush. They are not looking to reestablish the Carter era confiscatory taxation rates. They understand that tax cuts lead to economic boom times. They are not committed to the Jacobin/Marxist doctrines of “eat the rich”. They make no virtue of envy and covetousness. They do not believe in punishing the successful and rewarding the slothful or incompetent or reckless, as Obama and Democrats clearly do. (This is blatant vote buying.) Republicans do not have a desire to skin whites to lard-up Negroes (The Joe the Plumber gaffe shows this attitude as clear as day.)They do not have Obama’s racial revenge desire to rob you “Joe the Plumber” whites in order to, “…help those coming after you.” Republicans are not Obama in his racial pathology, with twenty years of attendance and membership in a false, anti-Christ “church”, that is the black equivalent of the First Church of the Klan. The level of, “hate whitey”, Louis Farrakhan, Jew-hating, James Cone (head) afro centrist psychosis in this joint is morbidly fascinating and grimly disturbing. Republicans don’t attend. Obama did, for twenty years, and then lied about his understanding of what goes on in this backroom of hell. Republicans did not write his radical, hate whitey memoir. No, that was almost certainly ghost written in much of it by one Bill Ayres, a talented writer (which Obama is not), as well as a 60’s era Weather Underground Creep in Chief, who, along with his dipsey doodle wife (one Bernadine Dorn – a disgrace to the Irish), helped bomb, rob, maim, and murder non-communists throughout the land. (Those who doubt Obama’s connection to these two really need to get better informed.) Republicans (except McCain) have not swallowed the global warming cool aid. They do not seek to decimate coal, hyper-inflate electric rates, ban drilling, ban new refining capacity, ban nuclear power, and return us to Carter’s rationing lines. Republicans don’t want us to continue to enrich the Saudis and Chavez, while ignoring shale, offshore, and Alaska oil. Obama is the radical environmentalist nut balls lackey. It goes on and on and on. Obama is a classic, loony anti-war left appeaser. Obama harbors a secret resent of the Jews if not an outright anti-Semitism like his beloved preacher. Obama hews to an Arab narrative a propos the Arab/Israeli conflict. Obama will sell out Israel. Obama will sell out Taiwan. Obama wants our foreign policy to be that of the French. Obama hates and will decimate the US Military. Obama will destroy the espionage measures that, under Bush, have kept the Jihadis on the run and far from us. Obama will, dreadful to say, almost certainly follow the policies of Clinton, treating terrorist as criminals, not warriors. This led directly to 9/11. God forbid. I dread what could come of such insanity. Finally, on the social issues which are critical for me: 1) Barack Obama is the most radical abortion lover and defender to ever achieve such a high office in the history of the world. His vile disregard for the unborn goes beyond the womb to the aftermath of botched abortions. His mentality is Hitlerian. 2) He is a total defender of so called Gay rights. He pretends a centrist stance here. Do not believe him. 3) His conflicted, suppressed, quiet rage hatred of whites will find its most satisfying outlet in amnestying millions of non-white conquering invaders, to his unending glee. The most despicable man in American politics is John McCain, except for Barack Obama, Barnie Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Chuck –you Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, ad nauseum. As Richard Weaver so wisely wrote, Ideas have consequences. So do elections, and so do choices.

Why does it have to be only “self-hating whites” who voted for Obama? There are many things to weigh when making a decision, (how to vote in this case). Race was quite possibly a (negative)factor in this election for those whites who did eventually vote for Obama, but manifestly race was not the only factor, and Mr McCain’s seeming endorsement of President Bush’s failed policies and objectives was worse in the eyes of many whites than Mr Obama’s skin colour. Surely Mr McCain lost the election primarily because of the state of the economy.

This doesn’t mean that whites are clueless about race or that they “fawn” over blacks. It just means that race is only one of many factors that they weigh up when deciding which way to vote, along with, say the economy, or the wars. Anyway, analysis has shown that Mr McCain received a clear majority of the white vote.

I think that the next four years will galvanise whites. There has never been anything nearly so emblematic of their coming dispossession as the election of a black President of the USA. I hope that whites are going to grow up, and seek out serious minded and informed leaders. (But, just as race is not the be-all-and- end-all, so with politics, they will still watch “The X Factor” or sport, this doesn’t mean they are apathetic brainwashed lemmings, or whatever.)

I definitely feel that we are at the turning point, the slow but inexorable rise of white racial consciousness (but not fanaticism) as an inevitable consequence of such an attitude amongst non-whites. Everyone recognises that Mr Obama only won because non-whites voted for him.

Some one put this very well elsewhere…”The point is we can still win this election if the white candidate loses, if the racial polarization resulting from a large racial voting gap is sufficient to awaken the racial consciousness of our people. If the black candidate wins we will need this newly awakened sense of racial unity and power to check the anti-white agenda and ideology of the radical left that he will bring to the executive branch.”

An observation I forgot to mention. There was a great deal of whooping and screeching the other night amongst the supporters of Mr Obama. (The ones they showed on the British telly were almost exclusively black.) These people will presumably be encouraged and energised by the victory of Mr Obama, as will a great number of poorer non-whites. But encouraged to do what? Work harder? But many of them don’t work. Start new businesses? But where is their capital, and what skills do they possess? These people are not, let’s face it, very productive citizens, and I suspect that many of them belong to the “Cargo Cult”. To be blunt it doesn’t really matter to the economy whether they are thrilled or disappointed about the result of the election. However, if the productive white base of the USA becomes demoralised by the outcome and what it portends for the future, then their loss of confidence could have a real effect on the economy.

Tremendous summing up, DTF. My fear is that many conservatives are complaisantly anticipating a rerun of the Carter administration scenario: economy getting progressively worse; Republicans retaking congress or at least scoring major gains in 2010; foreign policy disasters; Republicans regain presidency in 2012.

But this will be a hard marxist scorched earth administration.

Will “right wing hate speech” have been criminalized by the next election cycle? Will any spirited criticism of administration policy be defined as “racism” and shut down by then? Will ACORN or ACORN clones, protected by a politicized justice department be in a position to fix all tight contests by then? Will whoever emerges as the leader of the opposition have been either smeared beyond rescue by the MSM or jailed by then?

When the defense of traditional values - which the Republicans have woefully neglected to keep front and center before the people - is classified as hate speech under Obama, and it will be, how do we get back to traditional values?

ricpic, you have it exactly right and it is, frankly, terrifying. Will we even be allowed to have internet free speech such as this by the end of this person’s first term? Will right wing talk radio be premanently out of business, silenced by a new “fairness” or “community” doctrine?

One need only look north to Canada to see how far these bastards will go to attack freedom of speech, under the infinitly elastic rubric of “hate speech”. These people are Stalinist thugs, willfully ignoring the hypocracy of rejecting the words, “I may hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

McCain’s pander to the New York Times and his MSM pals with McCain-Feingold, Republicans not defunding and investigating ACORN, failing to govern as the party in power (the left never makes this mistake) all this and its like have led to this corner where the enemy is throwing haymakers at conservative, traditionalist, and ultimatly pro-white governance.

Of course there is a way out of this, but, as you warn, it does not lie in crystal ball gazing to overcome the Oprah-ization of white female voters or the professoriate’s poisoning of the mind of the voting white youth.

It lies in the reassertion of a clear conservative alternative to attract even more of this “lost” white vote. Ronald Reagan’s “no pale pastels, bold colors” speech is the way out. Walk ye in it.

Never refer to Obama as the president. Do not dignify him with a title he is not legally permitted to hold.

JRR,

?!? Explain please.

Although I voted McCain, it was merely to stop a man who had such unbelievable - and scary - financial backing that one must not only wonder who he owes but just how many he owes? Will he snub them and do his own thing? After all, criticism of a black president will be swiftly silenced! Of will be pay a heavy price?

He’s a smart guy, been groomed by whites, and is merely a different wing of the same bird. What lies down the road is unpredictable. A mere two years in the Senate leaves him with a very small track record. That track record does not necessarily mean he will stay on the same course. Is he a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma? The 21st Century’s Manchurian Candidate? We’ll soon find out. Hopefully, he will just end up disappointing us all. That would make me very happy!

DTF, how can Obama be anti-Jewish when he chose Emanuel to be chief-of-staff? If he had chosen an Islamic-type, I would agree, but he chose not only a Jewish man, but, from all accounts, a Zionist. And, is not Axelrod a Jew?

By the Son of Man on 11/12/08 at 10:57 am

And many of his financial backers were too. Penny Pritzker, David Geffen, George Soros, et al.

He is not anti-Jewish anymore than Ted Kennedy is. I think the Muslim world will be very disappointed. I think Americans that voted for him will soon realize that the only change they’re getting is for the worse. Same folks, different faces. The Jewish oligarchy marches on….

Melanie Phillips answers your question clearly:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

My view is this. Emanuel, Tzipi Levni within Israel, put multiculturalism above the interests of the Jewish State.

They are so parinoid that ANY ethnic nationalism smacks of facism, that they roll the dice with Israel’s future; they sell land for the false promise of “peace” and ignore Israel’s Arab demographic timebomb.

What’s was the point, after the Holocaust, of a homeland where Jews could live in freedom and defend themselves, if it were not at least an overwhelming majority Jewish POPULATION state? But don’t you see how counter that is to liberal dogma?

This is the conflict with suicidal liberals, Jewish and non-Jewish.

One thing I found bizarre about this election is the enthusiastic support given to Ron Paul by people calling themselves ‘pro-white’. This is a man who has voted against border control, supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, and wants to increase legal immigration.

Mr Tancredo was the only candidate that I actively supported. The others I merely regarded with varying degrees of detestation, including Ron Paul. I favoured Mr McCain over Mr Obama, Mr Romney over Mr McCain, and Mr Tancredo over everyone else. Also, I favoured Mrs Clinton over Mr Obama.

JRR,

I think you’re mistaken but please feel free to prove me wrong (cause I wanna know if I have misinformation).

Ron Paul is against amnesty and although he favors H1B visas, he believes immigration needs to be scaled way back. He believes in secure borders and our right to defend them with force if necessary.

MissScarlet,

Ron Paul has recently embraced Obama and multiculturalism :

http://tinyurl.com/63mzv3

It would have been tolerable if Ron Paul had merely congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory, but in this piece he goes out of his way to praise ‘diversity’, multiculturalism, racial equality, and all the rest. Of course this shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone familiar with Mr Paul’s voting record. I have documented his support for increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and his opposition to border security. Anyone calling himself ‘pro-white’ should not support an open borders libertarian, while treating Mr Tancredo, who calls for a suspension of even legal immigration, with more or less indifference.

For further documentation of my charges against Paul, see http://tinyurl.com/5chl9j .

To Mr Jobling,

Mr Obama is not legally permitted to be president of the United States because he is not a natural born citizen.

JRR,

You’ve fallen for a piece of desperate mystification. Anyone born on US soil is a natural-born citizen of the US, and Obama was born in Hawaii. Birthright citizenship is why the US is enriched by 425,000 anchor babies every year, also.

Obama is very pro-Jewish. He appointed Emanuel as chief of staff, is an AIPAC member and made pro-Israel remarks. There even was a group called Rabbis for Obama, and Jews voted for Obama more than any other Democrat. As I said before, Obama’s foreign policy is superior to that of McCain. Just don’t trust the Islamophobic and right-wing smears on our future president. He also got endorsements from Dershowitz, Deborah Lipstadt, Jewish Hollywood, Ross, the ambassador to Israel, etc. etc.

As for Paul, there isn’t much difference between him and Tancredo except he was still running by super Tuesday. Perhaps his immigration policy is slightly flawed, but besides Tancredo, it is better than all of the candidates who ran Republican, Democrat or 3rd party. And unlike Tancredo, Paul is isolationist and against pork.

Economist, McCain is pro-amnesty, Obama is too but not as enthusiastic. McCain is bi-partisan so more likley to pass amnesty; Republicans hate Obama so they won’t vote in line with him. Obama may or may not be harmful, but the harm will be slowly reversible and will galvanize conservatives, most of whom are white.

DTF:

Bernadine Dohrn is not Irish. A simple Wiki search turned up that “Bernardine Dohrn was born Bernadine Ohrnstein in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1942 and grew up in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, an upper-middle-class suburb of Milwaukee.[1] Her father, Bernard, changed the family surname to Dohrn when Bernardine was in high school.[2]. Her father was Jewish and her mother, Dorothy, was a Christian Scientist with a Swedish background.”

I am glad you are not afraid to cast out someone who has proved themselves unworthy of being Irish; however, I think we should save that for the folks who actually descended from the Celts.

JRR and Ian Jobling,

I have to agree about JRR’s assessment of Tancredo as the BEST candidate in the past election. I did not foresee him as a viable candidate for the rest of the country, who have proved themselves far removed from “our people,” to swallow. I also must say that Obama’s adoption in Indonesia, which was necessary to put him into school, took away his natural born citizenship. That lawyer in Philly makes a decent case, I think. Of course, it is so far fetched that people dismiss the looniness of it all, it could just be true.

Our people is a reference to like-minded folks, by the way.

Ajo,

Your argument for Obama being “very pro-jewish” is lacking. You have said Obama’s foreign policy is superior to that of McCain, but provide no evidence. Also, Jewish Hollywood endorsing Obama is a FARCRY from a Jewish endorsement of Obama.

The fact is, he sat in a white/Israel-hating church who gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakan (NOI head who calls for the DESTRUCTION of Israel). 20 years he did this. Not to mention his own Pastor, “who was like an uncle to me,” said similar things about Jews and Israel. Of course, this stems fromt he belief that a majority of blacks have that the Jews of today are “Imposter Jews,” because the original Jews were black. Of course, you can take a look at the paintings in Egypt that survive from the days when they had Semitic slaves, and they are CLEARLY NOT BLACK. Sorry for the rant.

I don’t smear, and I don’t suffer from Islamophobia. I simply use the facts and my studies of history, philosophy, and human nature to determine the decisions I should make. I have come to the conclusion that Obama is not “very pro-jewish;” he’s not even pro-Jewish.

I will end with a quote from Ben-Gurion to Ariel Sharon, “Let me first tell you one thing: it doesn’t matter what the world says about Israel, it doesn’t matter what they say about us anywhere else. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won’t survive.”

Gregory F.

Could we get a link to “that lawyer in Philly”?

The thing about Ron Paul is he is a libertarian. At some points in his career therefore, it should be no surprise to anyone that he was for amnesty and open borders. Furthermore, he is a congressman from Texas. It is very difficult to be anti-Mexican running in a state that, thanks to the invasion, is now on its way to being fifty percent Mexican. Furthermore, you can not be taken seriously in American politics today if you do not denounce racism-by the way, the first thing that must change. Racism, reasonable racism must no longer be viewed necessarily as evil. Tancredo is no racist either. Well, actually I think both of them are, but that’s beside the point. They are both merely paying lip service. Still, Ron Paul is no open border guy any long JRR. He changed his position ten years ago, which is more than I can say about any neocon. The paleoconservative wing, which Ron Paul pretty much firmly and squarely resides on, is also no friend to multiculturalism or diversity. Secondly, remember all those racist articles that Ron Paul put his name on? Remember that information that upset many brainwashed American moderates? I just do not think Ron is an overt racist. I think he’s doing less lying and more bending the truth. Ron Paul = Good guy, trust me on this one. Giving power to the people and taking it out of the government’s hands is the first step to not just a constitutional America but one cleaned up from the disgusting elements that have taken its prosperity hostage.

I think Ron Paul like any libertarian minded individual wrestles with the idea of how to advance libertarian goals in our cuerrent circumstances from abolutism boardering on fanaticism (Murray Rothbard) to becoming an political insider (Alan Greenspan) He therefore adjusts his political strategy accordingly. He is deliberately vague on immigration probably for a reason - most libertarians who would be activists in his campaign are open border fanatics but his voting base is considerably anti-immigrant.

Ron Paul and the paleo-libertarian movement is more Politically correct than it was 15 years ago regarding race. Hence Lew Rockwell outburst against ‘Red State Fascism’ because conservatives enthusiastically supported the Iraq war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w

This was the link from the lawyer from Philadelphia that was trying to remove Obama from the ballot. I think he has some credibility, though I doubt anything will come of his case.

IMHO,it is better for white realists and republicans/conservatives in general to use the disaster of 2008 as the basis of a plan to take back our country. Republican candidates can never allow themselves to be outspent , especially by 3 or 4 to 1. A great example of the power and importance of money in winning elections is the current mayor of NYC Michael Bloomberg. He ran initially as a Republican in a city in which registered dems out number registered republicans at least 6 to 1. However, Bloomberg is not only very wealthy, he is a billionaire. The bottom line of this example is , if a republican candidate is viable, and most importantly, sufficiently funded , they can win , even where the electorate is one of the most liberal in the country. Obama’s campaign, very smartly used the internet to raise massive amounts of contributions ,along with not bothering with such unimportant (sarc) things such as campaign finance laws. The results of Obama’s massive outspending McCain was Obama was made to look more conservative than McCain. One commercial in particular, touted how Obama will only raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 yearly. He then made McCain look like a democrat by strongly implying , it is McCain who will raise taxes using McCain’s proposal to tax medical insurance benefits, as an example. In 2006, the Democrats very smartly ran candidates who were very conservative compared with the typical democrat candidate. Jim Webb defeated George Allen Jr who was being touted as a leading candidate for the republican nomination to run for president in 2008. Webb is a war hero, who served in the Reagan Administration and was a republican until he was convinced to run as a democrat. IMHO, the democrats believe the country is more conservative than liberal. They ran many candidates who would appeal to republicans ,independents and Reagan democrats including many young military veterans. McCain was the most hated of the republican candidates by rank and file republicans prior to the primaries. It was the stupid rules allowing those who are not registered republicans to vote in the New Hampshire primary which allowed McCain to make his “comeback” to the detriment of the Republican party. The last 2 election disasters can be reversed if the Republicans get some Lee Atwater types. i.e. very smart, relatively young ,energetic,and will “take no prisoners” to win elections. The late Lee Atwater was a very effective political consultant. Another example is Newt Gingrich. If the Republicans get to right consultants , fundraisers etc. they can take back the country.

Gregory F

What a relief! Now my Celtic ancestors can stop spinning in their graves. Many thanks for the correction.

Ajo

I’m afraid that I must agree with Gregory F’s reply to you on the subject of Obama and Israel.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2592291/deeper-into-the-trap.thtml

Above is a better link to the Melanie Phillips blog article, recommended by me in the above previous post.

Below is the pertinent quote from the article:

“The appointment as his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the reputed bruiser whose role is to crush with extreme ruthlessness all opposition to Obama’s programme, tells us very little — even though he is a former Israeli with a father who was in the Irgun Jewish terrorist organisation. So what? So was the father of Israel’s foreign minister Tzipi Livni, the woman who has done so much to weaken Israel by seeking to give away Israeli assets to Palestinian leaders who say in terms they will never accept Israel as a Jewish state, as well as strengthening the Syrians by talking to them.

Rahm Emanuel himself was involved in the catastrophic Oslo appeasement process, which led directly to the second intifada and helped fuel the rise of Hamas. What is little understood in a western world in thrall to the noxious narrative of Jewish control over the American agenda is that American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal or on the left – and Jews on the left who support Israel often espouse policy positions which threaten to destroy it, thus making themselves the useful idiots for Israel’s enemies. Indeed Israel’s own politicians on the left, including the current Prime Minister — who has now said that Israel should revert to the pre-1967 ‘Auschwitz’ borders, a remark which caused even Haaretz to choke on its falafel — have gone down precisely the same suicidal road.”

it is ironic that racist ideologues are assuming the libertarian label. the libertarian philosophy of maximal freedom and minimal governmental interference(interference except in the case to protect personal freedom) is in sharp contrast to racial fascism. how do you reconcile a white woman’s libertarian right to choose her mate with your obsessive disdain for interracial union?

Again, you guys have failed to read the stats properly. president-elect obama polled even with mccain with non-southern whites. the only reason that mccain won whites by only seven points is due to the race-based southern strategy. so obama is not the candidate of the non-whites, but rather the candidate of a larger coalition that included whites, and non-whites. In fact, it is mccain that has become a regional candidate of the old southern confederacy. I wonder what will you do in 2012 if the election is between obama and bobby jindal.that will be very interesting, obama, a direct descendant of Jefferson Davis, and a son of middle America, but a partially black man, and bobby jindal, son of recent Indian-immigrants, and converted christian, but a staunch republican. it is funny how people talk about our founding fathers not wanting obama to be president. if you inherit a house from your parents, are you required to keep the old furniture, or the old paint. in fact, you are allowed to even destroy the old house to create a better one than what you have inherited. also, are you not required to maintain your parents’ old rivalry with the people next door. that is why the founding fathers argument is ridiculous. on the contrary, i believe that the founding fathers were closeted humanists who believed in a different future for this country. that is the reason that they framed the constitution in such a way that repression of a segment of americans can be challenged in the future. they knew that they could end not repression, but they created a constitution with such a moral astuteness that all americans can use it to protect themselves. by the way, on what logical basis isn’t obama qualified to hold the highest office? a direct descendant of prominant colonial americans including some founding fathers not allowed to be president,but a second-generation polish-American is. many of you here are not anglo-saxons, yet i do not see you excluding yourselves from american political power.

John,

You have no basis for saying that the only reason McCain won whites by seven points is due to race-based southern strategy, Obama is a direct descendent of Jefferson Davis (Class of 1828, BEAT NAVY), or presuming that Jindal would be the nominee in 2012, or that anyone on this forum would even vote for him.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions…”

This little bit from the first important document in American history shows just how much the founding fathers wanted to preserve their way of life for Posterity. The reference to Indian Savages, while not the same type of Indian as Jindal, shows how much they did not approve of mixing.

“that is why the founding fathers argument is ridiculous.” “i believe that the founding fathers were closeted humanists who believed in a different future for this country”

I think I’ve shown, quite simply and easily, this statement of yours to be obsurd, as it shows your lack of understanding of the type of statesmen the founders were. I don’t expect you to understand, as you have been brought up to believe this anti-America BS they feed you in school these days and have not found the need to immerse yourself in historical documents to learn for yourself. I believe that if you read books other than The American Pageant, A People’s History of the United States, etc. and visit the library and study who Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et al; then you would begin to see the reality of what our Country is supposed to be and how far we are from it.

JRR,

You have some good points about Ron Paul. I supported him because of his call for freedom, less government, non-interventionism, low-taxes, etc. I do not believe he is my perfect candidate but he appears to be an honest man who basically lives his beliefs. Could we ask for more? Yes, all the above and a white race realist would be astonishing.

My problem with Tancredo (and I sent his campaign $100 in addition to all the money I sent Paul (Dr. Jobling, I was working at the time)) is that his pandering to the NAACP was way too early in the campaign. He should have been well aware that he wasn’t going to win black folks no matter how much he groveled. And it appeared to me that he didn’t have a clue. Any man that wins the presidency is going to be President to black folks, too. But if they don’t get him elected and - even more important - they don’t want him to get elected, he owes them nothing.

I think he could be a reckoning force in the future. Hopefully, he will try again.

Gregory F, generations progress as they challenge their forebearers. your argument of us following strictly everything that our forebearers intended is ridiculous to say the least. it just is a dangerous form of nostalgia. when you inherit a company from your parents, do you run it exactly the way they had run it even in the presence of new realities? in fact, if you intend to respect your parents’ memories, the logical step would be to restructure the company so as to make it survive in the new economic reality; so, your idea that we should not adjust defies evolutionary nature of human conditions. America has changed, get used to the fact that it has irreversibly changed. what is anti-america? you are being anti-american when you want to subvert the democratic process by attempting desperately to delegitimize a president that has been elected by the majority of the American people. also, the original constitution made room for constitutional amendments, so the civil rights amendments are not unconstitutional since the original constitution allowed these provisions under certain conditions. one is being anti-american when one advocates a secessist movement. One is being anti-american when one threatens the life of the president-elect. this website is anti-american to its core because it stands for the same fascist philosophy that we Americans defeated in Germany. many of you guys have a weird conception of Americanism. America has always been a country that respects individualism, the rights of others. of course, america has made mistakes, but of all countries in the history of the world, we have been more conscious about correcting our mistakes. that is the greatness of america, the ability to self—correct, and self-improve. fascism? fascism is the philosphy that individuals do not matter, and the whole as the ideal is means to iit own end. so, when you think that individual whites have no right to choose their mates due to your own view of white supremacy, you are following a fascist philosophy. I do not buy the myth of whites as cancer, but i do not buy either the myth of blacks as degenerate morons.

“Gregory F, generations progress as they challenge their forebearers.”

Whether our current state of affairs bespeaks “progress” is the question at issue, and your characterization merely begs that question. In any case you are the one who advanced the absurd notion that the Founders would have approved of the anti-white, multiracial regime the government has constructed. Gregory is wholly right to point out how ridiculous and baseless this notion is. You can’t have it both ways. Either the Founders were “closeted humanists” (what exactly is a “humanist,” anyway?) or we have “progressed” (or perverted) their idea of what sort of nation the US ought to be. Which is it?

“America has changed, get used to the fact that it has irreversibly changed.”

Nothing in human affairs is irreversible. Have you ever heard of Yugoslavia, the Holy Roman Empire or the Soviet Union? Where are they now?

“also, the original constitution made room for constitutional amendments, so the civil rights amendments are not unconstitutional since the original constitution allowed these provisions under certain conditions”

There were no “civil rights amendments,” only federal statutes of dubious constitutionality.

“one is being anti-american when one advocates a secessist [sic] movement.”

That must be why we’re still part of the British Empire, right?

“One is being anti-american when one threatens the life of the president-elect.”

Who on this website has threatened B. Hussein Obama’s life?

“this website is anti-american to its core because it stands for the same fascist philosophy that we Americans defeated in Germany.”

You are wholly ignorant of European intellectual history if you think you’ve seen anything remotely related to “fascism” on this website. I doubt you could discuss fascism in a way that would hold water for ten seconds. Moreover, the notion that the United States went to war over a “philosophy” is simply naive.

“fascism is the philosphy that individuals do not matter, and the whole as the ideal is means to iit [sic] own end.”

In American today, an individual is not free to 1)sell his home to whomever he pleases, 2)select a white school for his children, 3)live in a white neighborhood that he and his neighbors design by common consent, 4)refuse to hire people he chooses not to hire, if those people are part of a protected race or ethnicity, 5)vote on any racial matter of real significance, etc. White Americans are told by “their” government that they must put aside their own interests for the “whole as the ideal,” ie. for blacks, mestizos and other non-whites. Fascism? Tell me another one.

…or presuming that Jindal would be the nominee in 2012, or that anyone on this forum would even vote for him.

I might, if I deem his policies to be objectively pro-white/pro-American. Which isn’t out of the realm of possibility: by all accounts, he appears to be completely assimilated. And especially if he’s running against, say, Michelle Obama/Cory Booker…

Jindal’s problem isn’t his ehtnic background per se, it’s that, at the moment, he’s nothing more than Sarah Palin 2.0. Not ready for the national stage, and being pushed solely because of his racial tokenism (gender, in Palin’s case). Until the Republican clowns learn that they can’t beat the Oprah Party at the affirmative-action game, they’ll keep losing, and deservedly so.

To john: for the love of MLK Jr., can’t you use proper capitalization, punctuation, and, most importantly, paragraphs? Their content aside, your subliterate rants are a trial to get through. Not the best strategy for reaching a skeptical audience.

john writes: “one is being anti-american when one advocates a secessist movement.”

America was founded as a secessionist movement.

“so, when you think that individual whites have no right to choose their mates due to your own view of white supremacy, you are following a fascist philosophy.”

Who said anything like that, besides you? Marry whoever you want! I’d like the government to get out of the racial discrimination game, by ending affirmative action. Are you with me john, or is that kind of racism OK? I’d also like the government to defend our borders so a bunch of freeloading Mexicans don’t add to my tax burden. That OK with you? I’d also like to be able to join groups that advocate on behalf of White people, in the same way that such groups (NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, La Raza, etc.) advocate on behalf of nonwhites. Oh there’s no such thing as “White” (like my evil alter ego, half Jew Tim Wise says) but just Irish, English, … Bull. There’s no such thing as Black (Igbos, Luos, Bantus, Haitians, Jamaicans, ..) or Mexican either.