Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 15th, 2006 #1
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Libertarians versus "White Nationalists"

It looks like I may have been moderated from this thread over on "This Just In" (or, perhaps moderated altogether, in which case this will be my last post). I've posted replies to a message from janewhite88 (the original message isn't appearing on the thread either), and to one from Rounder, and they haven't shown up. Which is fine, as the thread was beginning to diverge from its original subject (why Glenn Miller won't appear on the Libertarian Party's ballot line) to another (why libertarianism and "white nationalism" are incompatible), and to descend to the usual bullshit rhetoric that people like Miller throw out when they know they've screwed the pooch and can't win the argument.

So, I'll reply to Miller's latest here, and then try, one last time, to post to the other thread to point here. Let's get started:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaslknapp
Since I've never seen any evidence to suggest that such a thing as "the White Race" (or any other race) exists other than in a) infinitesimal variations in exceedingly small portions of human DNA and b) the minds of people who think that they can turn the groupings into which those variations fall into political tools, no -- I don't care that the "White Race" is dying out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
You realize of course, that if you said that to my face, I'd break several sensitive bones in your face.
At this point, most people point fingers and say "nyah, nyah, you lost it and threatened violence and can't we all get along and blah blah blah." I'm not like that. I'm 26 years younger than you, and the last time I got into a fight with any self-styled "Green Berets" (it was at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas in the early 1990s, and it transpired after I serenaded them with a ditty about 100 Marines taking a shit today and wiping their asses with Green Berets), I mopped the floor up with them.

I have no intention of ever being in your presence. However, if it ever happens that I am, and if you try to pull any of that idiocy, I'll break a lot more than your face before you have time to beg for mercy and offer to roll over on your alleged allies (again) if I'll please just let you live. 'Nuf said.

Quote:
But since we're in cyber space, do tell us your definition of "jew", if not a race that 20 million bow-legged, beady-eyed, hooked-nosed, warped-headed, dwarfs identify with
Judaism is a religion. Jews are people who practice that religion, or who, although they've ceased practicing it themselves, identify with a familial and community history of having practiced that religion. As "white nationalists" themselves often point out, there's been a lot of genetic change in that population over the last 2000 years or so, as the diaspora scattered most of the original, once geographically co-located, practitioners of the religion (some Jews remained in their homeland -- when the first Zionists began the Return, they found communities in Tiberias and elsewhere which had a continuous history going back prior to the diaspora).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
Is it possible you're not even aware that the brains of niggers are smaller, lighter, and less complex (convoluted) than the brains of White people ??
And your point is? Yes, over the course of evolution, populations (of the same species) evolved in different ways to accomodate different environmental requirements. Curiously, you don't mention Rushton's conclusion that "oriental" brains are, on average, half again as much larger than "white" brains than "white" brains are larger than "black" brains. I've not seen any data to sustain the notion that "black" brains are "less complex" than "white" brains. African populations' crania evolved to maximize heat dissipation, making the brain case slightly smaller. Whoop-de-do -- nothing a few hundred more years of evolution in different environments, and and interbreeding with those of different lineage (something I understand you've contributed to yourself) won't iron out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
Irrelevant differences"? Little biddy brains, sickle cell anemia, inside slop-headed beasts who right now enslave 40 million of their own kind in Africa, while living in mud huts, eating cow dung, drinking cow urine, and taking razor blades to their daughters' clits, is irrelevant ?? Are you crazy ??
The brain issue is covered above. Sickle-cell anemia is not limited to "black" humans; it is just more frequent in "black" humans than in "white" humans because in Africa (as opposed to, say, Scandinavia), the genetic mutation that produces it confers a survival advantage (versus malaria). Each of the other phenomena you list are cultural phenomena which are by no means limited to "black" populations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaslknapp
Now, a question for you: How is attempting to place your name next to the label "Libertarian Party" on a ballot to be voted by your district's 400,000 residents not "trying to pass yourself off as a Libertarian?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
A clever, kike-alike loaded question.
Thanks. I take it you'll add your endorsement to My Favorite Martian Lindstedt's designation of me as an Honorary Khazar, then?

Of course, I notice that you still refuse to answer the fucking question. Imagine that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
You ought to get on your knees and thank me for giving your party of idiots the $million dollars worth of free media coverage I just gave you.
Try a couple of hundred dollars at the very blue-sky outside -- and 90% of that due to the work of myself and others in publicizing the issue you raised (and, by unhappy necessity, yourself with that issue).

If you were as famous as you think you are, you'd be pretty famous. But you're not that famous. Hell, you're not even special or unique. We have jackasses who pull the kind of stunt you tried to pull every couple of years (Lindstedt, for example, and in 2002 a convicted attempted murderer). Usually, we get a lot more publicity out of those stunts than yours will end up generating, because in the past we've always found real libertarians to take them on in the primaries instead of just sending them packing. This is simpler and more honest, but the only chance we really have of getting any significant ongoing publicity out of it is if you decide to sue, and then only until the case is dismissed since you don't have a case versus the party (although you might against the Secretary of State -- all we did was decline to accept your money; she's the one who ruled that that means you don't get on the ballot).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder
And if you could bring yourself to telling the truth, you'd admit you're absolutely delighted about my filing, and indeed estatic about all the media attention your tiny party has gotten on account of it. Aha !!!
Not especially. Your games are minor stunts that are really just a distraction. I just happen to consider them a fun distraction, unlike some Libertarians who get all bent out of shape about having to take the trash out. I haven't had this much fun since ... hell, at least since Lindstedt got tired of getting his (rhetorical -- he'd never risk his physical one) ass whipped by ol' "Judas" Knapp. Maybe not even as much fun since the late 80s Klan rally where I pointed out to your fellow loser "Steve Saxon" that he'd just said in front of a bunch of his fellow Kluxers that he wasn't all "white" (he tried that old "I'm part Indian" trick that you mention in your book).

I'd say that you and people like you are on my shit list, but that's not quite true. You don't rate to be on my shit list. Interacting with you and yours is more like going to the Primate House at the zoo and watching the monkeys fling feces at each other, and at the cage glass. Entertaining ... for a bit. But then I go back to my real business with real people and leave the monkeys to fling feces at each other unwatched. Have fun with your feces, Mr. Miller. After all, it seems to be pretty much all you've got.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #2
Anchorage Activist
Senior Member
 
Anchorage Activist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Last Frontier
Posts: 1,420
Default

Re: Tom Knapp

Mr. Knapp, it's regrettable that the dialogue between you and Rounder has assumed a belligerent tone, but that's between you and him.

However, there are a number of facts that I hope you will retain as a result of your association with VNN.

1). Diversity is not working. Most white people proclaim allegiance to diversity out of fear - fear of physical and economic retaliation. The Assistant DA of Allegany County, Michael Regan, got fired early this month simply for attending an American Renaissance conference. However, where it counts, most white people run away from diversity. Go to the Earth Resource Systems website, http://www.ersys.com , punch up ethnic maps of every major U.S. city, and you will see a mostly non-white inner city surrounded by white suburbs. It can't all be explained by economics.

2). There is a "Jewish Question". It focuses more on Organized Jewry than mainstream Jewry, but Organized Jewry speaks with an overwhelmingly loud voice, uses the court system to wage war upon our culture, and makes or breaks elections with their huge campaign contributions. Why do we give so much foreign aid to a country (Israel) which is 25th in the world in per capita income? And what do we get for it? The deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967. Jonathan Pollard looting us of secrets, selling them to the Israelis, who then transferred them to the Russians. We gave them AWACS technology, and they transferred it to the Chicoms. And we call them an "ally"? Imagine how WWII would have ended up if Great Britain had been that type of ally. And why is it that despite all the major outbreaks of genocide during the 20th century, the Jewish Holocaust alone gets the lion's share of the publicity? These and other issues we in the white nationalist community have raised will not go away. So even if you don't like some of the messengers, think twice before discarding the message. We may be wrong, but are you prepared to pay the cost if we're right?
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #3
Burrhus
From the next paradigm
 
Burrhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 638
Default Traversing

Mr.Knapp,
I posted this recently on a different forum but you seem to have been shunted over here. Please read.

Birds of a feather...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaslknapp
Since I've never seen any evidence to suggest that such a thing as "the White Race" (or any other race) exists other than in a) infinitesimal variations in exceedingly small portions of human DNA and b) the minds of people who think that they can turn the groupings into which those variations fall into political tools, no -- I don't care that the "White Race" is dying out.

"White nationalists" are one of any number of groups attempting to assert political power on the basis of non-essential and irrelevant differences. Libertarians are the group which attempts to limit political power on the basis of fact and reason. So, if we are "doomed to defeat," at least we're doomed in a good cause rather than in a bad one.
You are correct that no such thing as a race exists but then no such thing as a libertarian exists either. The confusion here is semantic; failing to distinguish between an object and its attributes. This is a common category mistake.

You, Mr.Knapp, are a human organism, a thing, having the attribute libertarian. A group of humans is a thing (just as you are a group of molecules) with the attribute race. Libertarian describes what kind of a human you are and race describes what kind of a group some particular group is.

The human group could be a group of lawyers or baseball players or believers in some religion. Law, baseball and beliefs describe the attribute that denotes membership in the group. Similarity of phenotype (physical appearance) within some self-identified range is the attribute which denotes membership in a group denoted by the term race. Thus, while races do not exist, the word race is semantically valid in that it has a referent...visible similarity within the group and visible difference outside the group.

The role that DNA plays in this is that it generates phenotypic variation amongst humans. This variation serves as a discriminative stimulus (a noticeable property of a thing) enabling humans to form into groups of people who are genetically similar to themselves along some gradient of visual properties. That is to say, one can look at another human and immediately see that he is or is not a member of your group.

DNA also generates variation in human behavioral abilities such as strength and intelligence. For example, the average IQ of whites in America is 100, blacks 85 and sub-Saharan African blacks 70. Groups can vary in the aggregate with respect to a wide range of behavioral ablilities. But that is not germane to this discussion.

Race plays an important role in evolution. Let us abandon the term race as a thing and substitute the phrase "phenotypically similar in-group" or simply in-group (as opposed to out-group). Why, or more properly how, has evolution resulted in our species, homo sapiens, being divided into a collection of in-groups?

Which brings us to "The Problem of Altruism". Why do people ever co-operate with each other in the struggle for evolutonary success? Why do we not see what evolutionary theory would seem to predict...a dog-eat-dog world of every man for himself. What advantage can there be in one man making any sacrifice that benefits another?

The answer is that evolution does not operate only on the individual level as most people believe (nor on the genetic level) but it also operates on the group level. Just as genes and individuals are subject to the process of natural selection, so are groups. The properties of genes, individuals and groups determine their evolutionary success...reproduction and maintainence over time.

Groups which have evolved with the property of altruism have a selective advantage over groups which have not. The higher the probablity of internal altruism and reciprocity the greater the advantage over groups with lower probablities of these traits being exhibited. The individuals within each in-group gain selective advantage in that their group as a whole is more likely to succeed over and against the other groups.

If homo sapiens were not divided into in-groups there would never be any advantage to be gained by altruism. Any sacrifice by an individual would be a loss of opportunity for reproductive success. The evolution of our species into internally altruistic in-groups has saved the species from that dog-eat-dog world that would leave the species itself at an evolutionary disadvantage against other species.

The downside of this division is occasional vilolent conflicts between groups but from an evolutionary perspective the advantage of internal altruism has outweighed the problem of war. After all, evolution is a competitive game.

And so you can see that while races do not exist, racial in-groups do exist. The success of any in-group depends to a great extent upon altruism, trust and coherence within the group. Phenotypic similarity has served throughout evolution as a discrimitive stimulus or visble marker enabling members of in-groups to quickly and safely identify other members of their group. Those who can be trusted and from whom one can expect altruism and towards whom one is expected to practice altruism.

The white race is in danger of dying out because its members have been duped into believing that universal altruism is morally better than internal in-group altruism. This is evolutionary suicide.

Compounding this error, white people have been taught by their parasitically invaded educational system that racial in-groups don't even exist. You yourself, Mr.Knapp, demonstrate the truth of that assertion. Absent a belief in the very existence of racial in-groups, it is virtually impossible for them to recognize the danger of extinction which their in-group faces.

It is this danger that Mr.Miller is trying to present to the white people of America. Assuming that you are white, it is also your obligation as a member of the white racial in-group to do the same.

Get altruism,give altruism.

Who the parasites are that have have duped us into practising suicidal, universal altruism and have invaded our educational system stripping us of a belief in the existence of in-groups...I will leave for you to discover.

Hint: It rhymes with screw and you as in...screw you. (The expletive is meant to describe their attitude toward the white race and is not aimed personally at you, Mr.Knapp.)

Time to get un-screwed.


A useful but very rudimentary introduction to the problem of altruism. Far from definitive.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/COOPGEVO.html
__________________
"The man who believes that he has free will is more easily controlled since he will never think to look for the chains"--Burrhus
__________________
The man who believes that he has free will is more easily controlled since he will never think to look for the chains--Burrhus

The jews are a problem--not our ONLY or SOLE problem, not responsible for EVERY problem faced by gentiles, not some ALL-POWERFUL race that we shouldn't bother trying to resist, not an EXCUSE for avoiding responsibilty for problems of our own making --but nonetheless, A REAL, SERIOUS PROBLEM.--Burrhus
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #4
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=Anchorage Activist]Mr. Knapp, it's regrettable that the dialogue between you and Rounder has assumed a belligerent tone, but that's between you and him.[/I]

Hey, that's the way it goes. My ambition in the other thread was not to tangle, but simply to demonstrate why it would be inappropriate for a "white nationalist" to run as a Libertarian (and for that matter, conversely, why it would be inappropriate for a libertarian to run on the ticket of a "white nationalist" party). While I am not a "white nationalist," and while I do in fact oppose "white nationalism" except to the extent that I'd respect the right of any group of people to live on their own and exclude others not to their liking, I really don't see a lot of good coming out of extended argument (i.e. Mr. Miller is not going to change his mind, I'm not going to change mine, and neither of us are likely to change anyone else's).

Your last post on the other thread (on race as a matter of culture, i.e. "phenotypic in-groups") was interesting and informative. I certainly don't deny that race exists as a "social construct" (more so than in the form of real substantial genetic differences), and that that is bound to have political implications.

Of course, "in-groups" can and do emerge on the basis of interests other than "race." Since I don't consider "race" an important enough matter to seek to form or belong to an "in-group" based on it, I've affiliated with an "in-group" based on something else (and it is, overall, an anti-altruistic "in-group" rather than one which attempts altruism on a universal or "diverse" basis).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorage Activist
1). Diversity is not working.
Forced "diversity" never works. If you examine the Libertarian Party's platform, you'll find that it opposes measures of force to increase "diversity" (such as "affirmative action" etc.).

[QUOTE=Anchorage Activist]2). There is a "Jewish Question".[/I]

Actually, I'd say there's more a "Pro-Israel Lobby Question." While I happen to support the existence of Israel (just as I'd support you if you and your "white nationalist" friends set up a country of your own on land acquired through legitimate means, and ran it according to your lights, so long as people were free to leave), I don't support US aid to Israel (or any other country), and neither does the Libertarian Party (many Libertarians are actually anti-Israel, believing that the land it is on was not legitimately acquired).

I know Jews who are pro-Israel, and I know Jews who are anti-Israel (one of my best friends, who happens to be Jewish, argues with me vociferously, with him taking the side of the "Palestinian" Arabs -- usually when he comes over for dinner and we barbecue pork steak).

Yes, there is a pro-Israel lobby in the US, just as there's an agricultural lobby, coal lobby, oil lobby, etc. And yes, the pro-Israel lobby is very effective at getting what it wants. However, it does not include all Jews any more than the "white nationalist movement" includes all "whites." And I judge people based on their own character and actions, not on the basis of their presumed membership in some "phenotypic in-group."

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #5
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Burrhus,

I got people mixed up -- in my reply to "Anchorage Activist," I address you article from the other thread. As I said, interesting and informative.

I'm not sure what's going on on the other thread. I received email notification of a post from janewhite88, which never appeared there. I replied, and my reply didn't appear. Then I replied to Glenn Miller, and that didn't appear either. I suppose there's probably a "moderation by forum or thread" utility and that I am in moderation on that thread, which is why I moved here.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #6
Fenrir
Alcoholic Racist Hater
 
Fenrir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 407
Default

Thomas Knapp,

You asked Glenn Miller if he'd bothered to read any libertarian books.

I've bothered to read some Rand: We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged. I've also read some Murray Rothbard (What has government done with our money?), some Hans Hoppe (Rothbard's protege), and probably a couple dozen or so long thought-out essays by various libertarian/objectivist thinkers.

Overall I agree with a lot of the ideas (the money issues, free market as a general social good), but I think the rampant individualism and ridiculous extremes libertarians vouche for are laughable and will not produce a workable society.

Comparing white racists to monkeys flinging shit at each other may be valid in a lot of cases, but either way it's is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Libertarians are usually either doobie-smoking pipe-dreamers or Randroids having orgasmic logic fits of "reason" over the greatness of the individual. Either way they're not a group of people worth taking seriously as a whole, and at this point neither group is "respectable." That will probably not change for the libertarians, because your philosophy is a dead end which does not accept the whole truth.

I think when you claim race doesn't exist or isn't significant you're being a bit disingenious. You know damn well it's quite important. The best a place like Sub-saharan Africa can hope for is for a temporary reprieve from the genocide. It will never rise to the level of accomplishment European or Asian societies have achieved. That will be the future of America and every other country which embraces the suicidal third world invasion - unless we can admit race matters and begin to act on that very crucial fact. The average differences in intelligence and other less precise factors (such as tendency towards freedom/tyranny) make a large difference in the sort of society the libertarians' lauded individual ends up living in.

I have read much about the psychometric differences and a bit about the genetic factors between blacks, whites, asians and jews. When we learn that race is valid, the question naturally arises, "Why is this essential truth being suppressed? Who benefits?" If you start asking questions like that, a study of the Jewish question is not far off.
__________________
"It's about time for those of us still capable of thinking tribally to begin doing so." - WLP
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #7
Burrhus
From the next paradigm
 
Burrhus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 638
Default Continuing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaslknapp
Burrhus,

I got people mixed up -- in my reply to "Anchorage Activist," I address you article from the other thread. As I said, interesting and informative.

I'm not sure what's going on on the other thread. I received email notification of a post from janewhite88, which never appeared there. I replied, and my reply didn't appear. Then I replied to Glenn Miller, and that didn't appear either. I suppose there's probably a "moderation by forum or thread" utility and that I am in moderation on that thread, which is why I moved here.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
Quote:
Posted by Knapp --Your last post on the other thread (on race as a matter of culture, i.e. "phenotypic in-groups") was interesting and informative. I certainly don't deny that race exists as a "social construct" (more so than in the form of real substantial genetic differences), and that that is bound to have political implications.

Of course, "in-groups" can and do emerge on the basis of interests other than "race." Since I don't consider "race" an important enough matter to seek to form or belong to an "in-group" based on it, I've affiliated with an "in-group" based on something else (and it is, overall, an anti-altruistic "in-group" rather than one which attempts altruism on a universal or "diverse" basis).
"Social constructs" exist no more than races do. Construct is a postmodernist term that I find to be semantically invalid as it does not refer to anything that can be operationally well defined. It seems to be something like a belief. If we make that change, then, yes, race is a social belief. That is to say, the members of an in-group have come to believe that those who are phenotypically similar to themselves are members of the same racial in-group and are be treated altruistically and more readily trusted.

While that belief is not itself directly genetically generated (as some sociobiologists would have us believe) it is genetically derived. Since genes determine the phenotype and phenotype determines in-group membership, the two are inextricably bound up with each other. In the end, in-groups are comprised by genetically related people.

In-groups based on properties other than phenotype, such as Methodists and libertarians, are necessarily sub-groups of some in-group. The existence of these sub-groups does not alter the basic nature of the larger in-group.

You do not "seek" to become a memeber of a racial in-group...you are one whether you recognize that fact or not. You were born white. You may attempt to remove yourself from membership but the other in-groups will never accept you. Try living in the Bronx for a few years. You will come back pleading for re-admission to the white in-group.

An "anti-altruistic in-group" is a contradiction in terms. The term in-group is defined as a group based on the practice of internal altruism. Have you not just sacrificed some of your time and energy dealing with the problem which you perceive Glenn Miller's attempt to run as a libertarian to be. Did all of the members of your "in-group" share equally in this burden? No, they did not. You acted altruistically with respect to the other memebers of your group in this regard.

Your presence here is an act of altruism benefitting other libertarians at a cost loss to you.

There is no escape from the laws of nature. Not seeing this is this is the fundamental flaw in libertarian philosophy.

Stick around...you may learn something new.
__________________
The man who believes that he has free will is more easily controlled since he will never think to look for the chains--Burrhus

The jews are a problem--not our ONLY or SOLE problem, not responsible for EVERY problem faced by gentiles, not some ALL-POWERFUL race that we shouldn't bother trying to resist, not an EXCUSE for avoiding responsibilty for problems of our own making --but nonetheless, A REAL, SERIOUS PROBLEM.--Burrhus
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #8
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
You asked Glenn Miller if he'd bothered to read any libertarian books.

I've bothered to read some Rand: We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged. I've also read some Murray Rothbard (What has government done with our money?), some Hans Hoppe (Rothbard's protege), and probably a couple dozen or so long thought-out essays by various libertarian/objectivist thinkers.

Overall I agree with a lot of the ideas (the money issues, free market as a general social good), but I think the rampant individualism and ridiculous extremes libertarians vouche for are laughable and will not produce a workable society.
Nothing particularly "non-mainstream" about your opinion. I disagree (and am prepared to debate it if you desire), but I don't disagree disagreeably.

My point in asking Glenn Miller if he'd read any libertarian books wasn't because I believed that he'd become a libertarian if he did. The question was related to my claim that his views conflict with libertarian views in significant enough respects that for him to run as a "Libertarian" for public office would basically amount to false advertising.

To put it a different way, I don't expect that everyone who checks out libertarian ideas will agree with those ideas, and I apologize if I came off that way. I've long since given up the childish notion that there's "a libertarian trapped inside everyone, trying to get out." I'm glad you did give those ideas a chance, and hope that at some point you'll come back to them and decide that they had more merit than you originally ascribed to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
Comparing white racists to monkeys flinging shit at each other may be valid in a lot of cases, but either way it's is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
I thought I was fairly specific in that quote, referring to Mr. Miller and those who comport themselves as he does (for all their arguments, he and Martian Lindstedt are pretty much peas in a pod, even if Martian is a little more entertaining in his rhetorical constructions).

I have to be straight with you here: I don't agree with "white nationalism" and I disagree with it vehemently enough that I am pre-disposed to dislike those who preach it. That's just a fact. However, in coming to this forum, I tried to take a polite approach, and a number of people who frequent this forum responded in kind. That's cool ... but when Mr. Miller decides it's time to hit it with the name-calling and threats, I can play that game, too ... and if it advances beyond threats ... well, I've lost a fight or three in my life, but nobody's ever walked away from one of those fights without knowing they had been in a fight. I was a grunt for ten years, and honor graduate of the marksmanship instructors' course at Quantico to boot, and I am capable of defending, and prepared to defend, myself and my family if it ever comes to that.

As for those on this forum who are civil, no problem. I'll be here until everyone's said his or her piece and it seems like the conversation is over, then I'll be gone and hopefully nobody will have hard feelings on any side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
Libertarians are usually either doobie-smoking pipe-dreamers or Randroids having orgasmic logic fits of "reason" over the greatness of the individual.
I know a number who resemble that remark. In the past, I had my period of fascination with Rand. Never really got into the marijuana thing, though. I prefer bourbon for the most part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
Either way they're not a group of people worth taking seriously as a whole, and at this point neither group is "respectable." That will probably not change for the libertarians, because your philosophy is a dead end which does not accept the whole truth.
Like I said, I'm willing to debate the philosophical angle, but that's not really what I'm here for.

As far as "respectability" is concerned, I've been personally involved in electing Libertarians to public office. Offhand, I think there are about 600 serving in public office nationwide at the moment, including elected and appointed combined (I'm a federal appointee, as a matter of fact). I wouldn't be too surprised to find that there are 600 "white nationalists" serving in public office in America, but I would be surprised to find that there are anywhere near that many publicly avowed "white nationalists" serving in public office.

The term "libertarian" continues to become more and more "respectable," and avowed libertarians in the LP and in other parties continue to be elected and appointed to office in greater and greater numbers. "White nationalism," on the other hand, reached the end of its glory days with the 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket and has been going downhill in terms of "respectability" ever since.

Not that that makes a lot of difference -- right is right and wrong is wrong, irrespective of popularity. But I believe that libertarians have the advantage on "white nationalists" in both respects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir
I think when you claim race doesn't exist or isn't significant you're being a bit disingenious.
Perhaps I should clarify:

I admit that "race" exists as a widely accepted construct based on observed/observable (but debatable apart from some very broad criteria of appearance) differences between groups. And I agree that it is significant because a great many people choose to treat it as significant.

However, I believe that those who choose to treat it as significant, especially to the degree of basing a political philosophy on it, are in error, and I seek the objectively significant out as the basis for my ideas (a little Randism popping up there, I guess).

In terms of realpolitik, this means that I'll never support candidates who play "the race card" as a reason to elect them -- regardless of which race they belong to, or which race they're targeting as the alleged opponent of themselves and their constituency. I have to have a better reason to vote for or support a candidate than that he or she is (insert "race" here) and promises to oppose (insert "race" here).

Ultimately, I think that the whole notion of "race" will resolve itself over the centuries with increasing interracial reproduction. Some "racial" groups are holding on to their "racial identities" with more tenacity than others (i.e. there are a lot of black people who still identify themselves largely on the basis of "race," and relatively few white people who do, which is one reason that "white nationalists" have to feel genuinely beleaguered), but eventually homogeneity will prevail (and with respect to the alleged variations in IQ by "race," remember that those of "oriental" extraction average a higher IQ than "whites" -- so when it all comes out in the wash, the homogenous human "race" will probably be about as intelligent on average as "whites" are now).

Of course, I won't be alive to see that unless we come up with some kind of amazing life extension therapy in the next few decades. Like you, I'm stuck in the ugly middle of a protracted and difficult process. I just have better things to do than resist that which I regard as not only inevitable, but ultimately beneficial.

Regards,
Tom Knapp
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #9
McKinley
coast to coast WN
 
McKinley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
Default Welcome Mr. Knapp

I am glad to see you have an open enough mind to check us out. Those whos' mind are shut, do theirselves an injustice.

Stick around you are sure to learn something you never thought you would.
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven

Kentckyanna True News

"What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!"

Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears.
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #10
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burrhus
Your presence here is an act of altruism benefitting other libertarians at a cost loss to you.
Actually, no, it isn't. I'm here because I want to be here, and I have no notion that any other libertarian is benefiting from my presence here. The fact that I came here to explain the Libertarian Party's decision with respect to Mr. Miller's candidacy doesn't, so far as I can tell, benefit the Libertarian Party, and any benefit it may provide to the people on this forum is purely a side effect. I like to converse and debate, and that's really all there is to it.

The philosophical basis of the doctrine of altruism is best explained in the work of Kant, specifically his "categorical imperative." An altruistic act is one that does not benefit the actor in any way, and that is performed in the spirit of self-sacrifice for others. My presence here simply doesn't answer to that description -- even if you, or others on the forum benefit, that wasn't my purpose in coming here, and altruism is defined in terms of purpose rather than specific action.

When I leave this forum, I'll leave knowing a little more about "white nationalism" in general, and some individual "white nationalists" in particular. I may also have sharpened my writing or debate skills, to my own present or future benefit (I write for a living now). I consider that a net gain (and continuing in economic terms, my net gain does not have to translate to anyone else's net loss, as much as Mr. Miller seems to want to make it translate to his loss of face, if he has any left to lose).

Regards,
Tom Knapp

PS: Sorry if the use of the term "social construct" offends you. I believe you are correct in attributing it to the pomos; I find it useful to describe a particular phenomenon which I believe Rand would have defined as an "anti-concept."
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #11
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

I just think all the rapes, murders and assaults people like yourself oversee are wrong. Maybe I'm being too judgemental, but I don't think there is much to commend in your cult of death. And no I'm not willing to debate the matter. One murder, rape or assault on a member of my extended family caused by your love-of-self is one rape, murder or assault too many. And there have been millions.

We have the right to self-defence and soon we shall begin to engage in asserting that right. If you deny us the ballot that leaves us the bullet.
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.

Last edited by Cthulhu; March 15th, 2006 at 09:26 PM.
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #12
janewhite88
aka nazibunny
 
janewhite88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in her big dog house
Posts: 598
Default

lol, OMG.

Man what a dreamer ya are.
I pulled my post cause I just pegged you as a self hating whitey and didn't even want to go into the faulty thinking ya are in, I just didn't have the time and still don't and thought I was being hasty in my response and didn't want to get into any hassle with ya. It reminds me of my own silly days of believing in Ayn, her strong stone feeling yet unfeeling, real but very un real characters, people putting art and purpose before all things. She writes a good story.

I never expected ya to let Miller on the ticket, I knew the odds. I have no arguements with ya, it has answered some of my own questions about the libertian party, did not realize the strong Rand attachment, that in itself turns me off.
regards
janewhite88
__________________
Form follows function --Louis Sullivan

a jane white portfolio
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #13
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomaslknapp


At this point, most people point fingers and say "nyah, nyah, you lost it and threatened violence and can't we all get along and blah blah blah." I'm not like that. I'm 26 years younger than you, and the last time I got into a fight with any self-styled "Green Berets" (it was at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas in the early 1990s, and it transpired after I serenaded them with a ditty about 100 Marines taking a shit today and wiping their asses with Green Berets), I mopped the floor up with them.

I have no intention of ever being in your presence. However, if it ever happens that I am, and if you try to pull any of that idiocy, I'll break a lot more than your face before you have time to beg for mercy and offer to roll over on your alleged allies (again) if I'll please just let you live. 'Nuf said.
Heh, thats pretty tough talk, tommy boy. I mean, yer scarin me right down to the bone. Beatin up Green Berets left and right and singing songs while doing it. I 'figger a guy like you must be about 7 feet tall so I did a search and lo and behold.


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...lr%3D%26sa%3DN

No offense, tommyboy, but I look at a picture like this and the first thing that comes to mind is poofter. I could be wrong and maybe you were just having a bad hair day and the wrinkled shirt is a kind of anti-establishment statement so I did a little further research.

The "Knappster blog. http://knappster.blogspot.com/ Featuring Maynard G. Krebbs. Yer joking right? This website is a parody, isn't it? A regular menace to society, he is.

But it gets better. Tommy boy also runs a website called the "Rational Review".
http://www.rationalreview.com/

In it, tommy boy fancies himself a sort of self-styled "intellectual". He also seems a little obsessed with gay rights as a good part of Rational Review is about...you guessed it, news about gays. http://www.rationalreview.com/?s=gays

So tell us, tommy boy. Are you thinking about coming out of the closet and being the first national queer candidate on the Libertarian ticket?
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #14
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

An tiny wee example of what Thomas L. Knapp stands accused of and what is also happening not far from where you live. He also is working to bring a judeo-bolshevic dictatorship into existance on the continental United States. Ignorance is no defence.

Adapt and Die -- South Africa's New Motto
Dan Roodt

During the time of National Party reforms in the seventies and eighties, the cliché "adapt or die" used to do the rounds. Nowadays, given the highest murder rate in the world, this should be modified slightly to read, "adapt and die". For the endemic social violence in South Africa is probably incurable.

Optimists think that violent crime can be solved through better policing, more efficient courts and more secure prisons. Even assuming that such improvements were possible under conditions of hard-core affirmative action, it must be admitted that criminal justice treats the symptom and not the cause of social violence. The Department of Correctional Services, for one, has lost 496 out of 500 former Deputy Directors since 1994, representing most of the intellectual capital in the department. Newcomers may learn their job properly, or they may not, but they have to be flown to overseas countries to find out how prisons work as most of those previously involved in managing our prisons are no longer there.

South Africa used to have a problem of political violence. It was not as bad as elsewhere in Africa, but for some reason elicited hysterical international condemnation. However, actors in political violence are mostly driven by some sort of creed or belief system. Whether such a person is a communist, an anarchist, a neo-Nazi or an ethnic or religious guerilla fighter, he is usually amenable to persuasion or compromise. Even a group of Muslim suicide bombers might declare peace if they were given a territory in which to set up an Islamic theocracy, governed only by themselves and not subject to any outside influence.

In the same way, South Africa's so-called liberation movements who were at one time fanatically convinced of the need for violent and bloody revolution, laid down arms and bombs upon being told that F.W. de Klerk would surrender power unconditionally. Solving political violence is often intractable, but not impossible.

Not so social violence. Endemic crime, the breakdown of the social fabric, a sense of drift regarding norms of good conduct, point to a far deeper problem. The freedom fighter or urban terrorist is ultimately rational, despite a value system that normal society might find idiosyncratic.

But what is "normal society"? It is only the sum-total of behaviours prevalent in any given society at any given time. The Aztecs, infamously, practised daily human sacrifice to appease their sun god. It might revolt many of us today, but to them it was entirely normal. South Africa currently sacrifices about 87 humans per day to violent crime, or 32 000 per year. Those are only the ones who actually die. Scores of others are injured, maimed, traumatised, robbed, raped, burgled and so on.

In any suburb today an entire history of murders, hijackings, and other violent events can be written, if only the locals were narcissistic enough to consider their own history worth recording for posterity. On the other hand, social violence lacks the charm and grandeur of political violence as it is usually not committed in the interest of some glamorous cause like national liberation or world revolution but simply to acquire some hapless person's BMW or rape his wife because she happened to be inside.

However, some time ago a Johannesburg newspaper engaged in chronicling some local history in the suburbs of Westdene and Lakefield in Benoni. Nearly every resident had a story to tell, an entire litany of mayhem. Mr. John Gee miraculously survived a shot through the eye, but now feels traumatised. His wife says, "One lives in fear in one's own home. One does not sleep. One prays for protection, yet only more fears come."

But who are the authors of South Africa's social violence? Even asking this question presents one with a sense of discomfort, because most violent criminals in South Africa are young black men between the ages of 16 and 36. As one surgeon who had stitched together at least three child rape victims, two of whom were infants, said recently, "Probably white men commit such acts too; it is just that no-one in South Africa has come across such a case."

Of course, it would be preposterous to say that all young black men are prone to violence. Judging from our daily experiences in crime-torn South Africa, however, a sub-section of that population, large enough to cause more havoc than even a well-equipped guerilla army of a few thousand men, has taken up practices such as heists, hold-ups, murders, sexual violence exacted upon women and children, and so on.

Explanations for such deviancy are manifold. The ubiquitous answer of it being due to apartheid might have been satisfying if other African societies never subject to group areas and a homeland system did not display similar traits. The Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone come to mind. There is a whole nature/nurture debate around black violence, except that no adherent of the "nature" side would publicly admit to being one, for fear of being branded a racist. Even though mainstream American cancer research has conclusively shown that black men have higher levels of testosterone than their white counterparts, few would hazard the notion that this might be linked to their greater propensity for violent crime.

America has a gargantuan prison population of two million, over half of which consists of African-Americans. This is despite their minority status in the USA, comprising only 12% of an overall population amounting to 290 million. South Africa could neither afford nor succeed, given the dire state of our criminal justice system, in jailing a similar number of black male offenders. Currently, only 10% of murderers in South Africa get arrested and only 6% are convicted. Any murderer therefore has a 94% chance of getting away with it.

If by some miracle all serious criminals in the country had to be caught and imprisoned, the prison population would surely treble or quadruple from the present 200 000, which is already high by world standards. Not only is such an improvement inconceivable under current conditions, but it would also be politically unpopular with the ruling ANC who would be incarcerating large numbers of young black males who are mostly its own supporters at the polls. Few whites, if any, commit violent crime and there are only 3 900 of them in prison, mostly for white-collar offences such as fraud or insider trading on the stock exchange.

All that remains in the world's most violent society, is precisely to adapt and die. Twice as many South Africans of all races now die of murder than of road accidents -- even though the road accident rate is also the highest in the world, surpassing that of Turkey. Crime extends to trade in driver's licences, so that a large number of drivers use so-called "bought licences", hardly a contribution to road safety.

There are some people naive enough to think that "something can be done about crime" in South Africa, mostly opposition politicians who dream about diverting funds from arms procurement to policing, but this would be futile. There are already three times as many private security personnel as state-employed policemen, and even they do not succeed in containing what has become Africa's only peacetime killing field.

"I killed them because they were white". These famous words were spoken last year by William Kekana, who participated in one of the most horrendous incidents in which the entire family of Mr. Clifford Rawstone was wiped out, consisting of his fiancée, baby, as well as his own mother. Even this massacre of an entire family would not have made headlines, were it not for the fact that one year-old Kayla was executed on her very first birthday with a shot in the head. Needless to say, the two adult women were first raped before being killed. Both William Kekana and his accomplice, Charles Fido Baloyi, fell into the high-risk group of young black (and Coloured) males who commit almost all violent crime in the country. [Image: Kayla Rawstone and her mother, white victims of black violence.]

South Africa actually has a Minister of Safety and Security, which to some might seem like an example of absurd humour. His Excellency Mr. Charles Nqakula, whose official résumé proudly states that he was once "a waiter and wine steward", has immortalised himself by euphemistically stating that there was no real crime problem in South Africa, except that it was "a little on the high side".

All in all, South Africa has got remarkably used to its new-found status as the crime capital of the world. The high-rise districts of Hillbrow and Berea in Johannesburg have been officially designated by Interpol as having the highest murder rate in the world, that is, 600 people per 100 000 population members per annum. Consider for a moment that such a figure represents 12 times the rate found in inner-city ghettoes in the United States, often seen as no-go zones by many Americans.

One British immigrant to South Africa who has survived three car hijackings, refuses to emigrate, stating that he is now accustomed to having Kalachnikovs pointed at him from point-blank range. Everyone knows a relative or friend who has been killed or at least subjected to some form of violent crime, and no South African can remotely imagine a society where people do not live behind razor wire, electrified fences, high walls, burglar bars and similar decorative props.

Outsiders might find our lifestyle bizarre, but many pundits in South Africa consider our society to be much more "normal" now than at any time in the past, which was tarnished by ethnic separation albeit without the present large-scale violence. At the height of segregation and apartheid under Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa was almost as peaceful as Switzerland but she was immoral. Today we are the apotheosis of racial morality and political correctness, yet as violent as the Congo or Liberia. Surprisingly, however, our economy continues to function amid the carnage. No economist has ever studied this as far as I know, but not only is crime our biggest industry -- bigger than gold-mining or manufacturing -- it also stimulates consumption as stolen goods are replaced; it is a boon to the insurance and security industries and ultimately makes surgeons and undertakers rich. The government earns billions of rands in Value-Added Tax on stolen goods being replaced with new ones. So crime pays.

News about killings or shoot-outs no longer elicits the slightest surprise. It is part of our daily existence, and one assumes the lethal risks attending to something as simple as going shopping or driving to work. My wife, for example, has twice been to the local shopping centre where in the one instance a shoot-out was taking place in the parking area so that she had to hide between the cars with our 18 month-old son in her arms; in the second case an armed robbery had just taken place with the robbers casually strolling by with their guns and their loot.

Everyone knows someone who has been killed, raped or maimed. Just this week, the wife of a friend and former literary editor of Die Burger, François Smith, was stabbed to death with a screwdriver in their home in Wellington, near Cape Town. Her murderer was a 16-year-old squatter camp resident whose race was omitted by the press but presumably few, if any whites, reside in his particular squatter camp which is dedicated to black Africans. Lisbé Smuts-Smith was a well-known academic and head of the Afrikaans literature department at the University of Cape Town. Just two weeks ago, another UCT academic, mathematician Brian Hahn, was attacked by a former student, Dr. Maleafisha Steve Tladi (35). Hahn died in hospital a week later, while Tladi was released on bail of R500 (about $80).

Two years ago Louw Rabie, a brilliant albeit reclusive geologist and brother of author Jan Rabie, was beaten to death with a fence pole by two Coloured men to whom he had lent some money a week earlier. Police in the small Cape town of Montagu readily caught his murderers because they happened to have drinking money during the week, taken from his home. He was 80 years old, but in good health. He is reputed to have been one of the most brilliant geologists and intellectuals this country has ever produced, writing copiously throughout his life but disdaining publication and public esteem. Africans with their oral tradition are fond of saying that "when an old person dies, a library burns down". What strikes me about the relentless killings of educated whites, is that the criminals are indeed "burning down the libraries" of this country and physically exterminating the intellectual class, much like Pol Pot did in Cambodia. The media are celebrating youth, dance, colour, being black and exuberant -- as opposed to the quiet studiousness of middle-aged and elderly whites, the bearers of knowledge and understanding. Are these learned whites who are being killed in exuberant, paradisiacal outbreaks of violence simply the remnants of a civilisation that is being eradicated in the name of decolonisation? No government spokesman has ever condemned such killings; so we may assume that the present regime is completely indifferent to them, where such killings do not enjoy their tacit support.

Around our local school in the past week there have been two car hijackings, as well as one murder. It is not really considered to be an exceptionally violent area. Most of this is not even reported in the press, because there really is not enough space and ordinary crime is no longer newsworthy. It needs some further sadistic element to make the front page, such as babies getting killed or raped, or elderly farmers being tortured to death. Farming in South Africa is now arguably the most dangerous profession in the world with more than 1600 farmers murdered since 1994, often in macabre and dehumanising ways.

To the outside world, white South Africans are congenitally evil. If our murderers and rapists had been white and their victims black, Europe or the United States would long ago have sent an expeditionary force to put a stop to it. At present, news of white suffering in South Africa inspires the occasional yawn in Western capitals. This is why a recent article in The Despatch, detailing the rape of a dog by three black men, gave me some hope that a chord will be struck somewhere in the coolly indifferent breasts of our fellow-Westerners. Even if the lives of Louw Rabie, Brian Hahn, Lisbé Smuts-Smith, Kayla Rawstone and tens of thousands of others are of no value to them, perhaps they will take pity on the mongrel bitch in Grahamstown that was recently raped by three black men. Or perhaps two black men, as the third one protested his innocence upon being dragged out of the shack by screaming, "I came here to relieve myself. These two were raping the dog when I arrived!" Cruelty to humans, especially white humans, is today a normal feature of our society, just like human sacrifice used to be in the culture of the Aztecs. Cruelty to animals, or non-consensual sex with dogs, may still evoke some sympathy, not only locally, but also internationally. I therefore feel sorry for Masganda -- the name of the dog concerned -- who was rescued with a bleeding vagina and in need of veterinary attention, but perhaps this lowly creature of uncertain lineage could become a martyr for our cause in alerting opinion-makers and political leaders of our plight.

Cycling has become a popular sport in South Africa. However, its practitioners regularly get shot at by gangs of black youths in the street, so that many of them carry guns and knives for self-defence on their bicycles. Members of the Johannesburg mountain-bike club were outraged a while ago when two cyclists, Scott and Lloyd Griffith, were charged with murder after an armed battle with their four black assailants, one of whom succumbed to his wounds.

Most of the time, however, whites are helpless victims of crime. The government has recently passed a new gun law which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to own a fire-arm. They have also abolished rural commandos of military reservists entrusted with crime-prevention in the country, without any police units replacing them. Occasionally the newspapers carry stories of crime victims successfully defending themselves against attacks, offering armed resistance. As a result of the new gun law, this will soon end and we shall simply be able to hide or flee from our assailants. Defending oneself against a marauding robber or rapist might be a manifestation of racism, and is therefore frowned upon as being a kind of "right-wing" response.

Being robbed of one's vehicle or household belongings is now considered quite normal, and often people ascribe escaping with their lives to their own astuteness, such as being friendly to the robber, helping him load the effects into a vehicle, not looking him in the face so as not to recognise him afterwards, et cetera. A friend of mine in Kempton Park kept up a reasonable conversation with the thieves emptying his house, tied up as he was with a gun pointed at him. He survived, although his elderly mother was badly roughed up and had to be hospitalised. In other instances, of course, people are not so lucky and they become just another murder statistic. Then they simply adapt and die.



The first draft of this article was submitted to the British Spectator, who turned it down about a year ago. I have now updated it with references to more recent incidents. Probably no mainstream newspaper in South Africa will publish it, because it refers to the race and gender of violent criminals, which is taboo here as elsewhere in the Western world. As George Orwell said, however, "during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".

In the interest of drawing attention to the anarchy that exists in South Africa, the author qualifies his copyright on this article and invites everyone to post it on his or her website, copy it and mail it to friends and mailing lists, translate it into other languages and to distribute it far and wide. The only condition is that no element must be changed or censored.

A PDF-version of the article which can be printed out, photocopied and distributed otherwise than on the internet, is available for download on the home page of www.praag.org.

---

How do you plead?
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.

Last edited by Cthulhu; March 15th, 2006 at 10:28 PM.
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #15
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B
No offense, tommyboy, but I look at a picture like this and the first thing that comes to mind is poofter. I could be wrong and maybe you were just having a bad hair day and the wrinkled shirt is a kind of anti-establishment statement so I did a little further research.
No offense, Stevarino, but your guess as to my sexual orientation doesn't really matter to me. I happen to be flamboyantly hetero (ask the four ex-wives I wore out), but I wouldn't care what you thought if it was otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B
He also seems a little obsessed with gay rights as a good part of Rational Review is about...you guessed it, news about gays. http://www.rationalreview.com/?s=gays
Wow, you're quite the researcher. "A good part?" Try about 1/340th of the current archive (26 posts out of nearly 9,000). Most of those posts, by the way, were entered by one of three other editors with whom I work to produce a daily news and commentary roundup of content summaries from other publications.

Whatever floats your boat, but if you're looking for "obsession with gay rights," you might try a mirror. Got something you want to share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B
So tell us, tommy boy. Are you thinking about coming out of the closet and being the first national queer candidate on the Libertarian ticket?
If I was gay, I'd already be out of the closet (I've worked on enough "gay rights" issues that it would be stupid to have stayed in the closet if that's where I was). But I wouldn't be "the first" gay candidate if I was, and did.

Thanks for playing.

Tom Knapp
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #16
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

Even if this guy is a homosexual that is way down on my list of priorities. His pandering for the murder and rape of my relatives is my main concern. All the soap in the world could not wash away the blood of my relatives on his head.

He has destabilised all good natural human relationships and created an anarchy of bloodshed and violence. At this very moment someone is being tortured because of Mr. Knapp. It did not need to happen, but people like Mr. Knapp prefer that kind of world to anything approaching decency, happiness and healthy human joy.

How did he grow so perverted? Who can tell, but it must stop.
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #17
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

Just think of all those dead children covered in blood. They could have been playing happily, fascinated by the world around them, discovering new things, and then, oh, they draw their hand away and grimice, because the froggy jumped. And then they ask their innocent questions and you try to answer as best you can.

But now they lie in the grave, their last moments on earth a living hell of misery. Remember that when you talk to Mr. Knapp. He and people like him are responsible. Steel up your heart.
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #18
thomaslknapp
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cthulhu,

I suggest that you either lay off the psychoactive drugs, or take up the anti-psychotic ones. Either that, or clearly state your case, if you've got one.

Tom Knapp
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #19
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

Like Alex says: "We are the good guys" and looking at the world created by Mr. Knapp and his friends it is readily apparent just how correct he is.

Ignorance is no defence. Head in the sand is no defence. Our extended family has for years been abused, attacked, maimed, by Mr. Knapp and his co-conspirators. This is their watch. Everything done in it falls upon them. Our watch is soon coming, slowly but surely, like the sun approaching out of the depths of darkness. Then the destroyers will have to go, withering under our heat. Good-bye Mr. Knapp. Hello Spring!
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.
 
Old March 15th, 2006 #20
Cthulhu
Senior Member
 
Cthulhu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 934
Default

Happy day when the evil dies. How there shall be rejoicing and celebrations, when life conquers the present parade of death and its charade of clowns and jesters, killers and haters.

Oh happy day approaching. What sacrifice is too much to bring forth your rays glorious? Liberation!!! For which my spirit cries. Sweet freedom once more to smile upon us with her gentle, mild face. Who cannot pledge their honour to her service?
__________________
Cursing braces; blessing releases.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.
Page generated in 0.52683 seconds.