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

Old January 25th, 2009 #81
jimmy smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,187
Blog Entries: 34
jimmy smith
Default

Razib Khan writing for Takimag now?

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/razibkhan/

He's some east Indian mud with an obsession for genetics and white women. It used to be, if you linked to his website
Code:
http://www.gnxp.com/
from stormfront that you'd be re-directed to interracial porn sites.
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #82
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default Another Career Girl

District of Corruption

Conservative Movement Embraces Conservative Principles, Whoring

by Ellison Lodge on July 20, 2009

“[I]t is now undeniable that the American Conservative Movement, the flower of Free World and the true hero of the Cold War, has ended in utter failure”, wrote VDARE.COM’s Peter Brimelow in his reflections on this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. He added:



None of this was remotely in evidence at CPAC (except unofficially in ancillary gatherings and down in the Exhibit Hall). The leadership appeared fat and happy. Quite literally—down in the audience, I was astonished at the lateral expansion of old friends up on the podium whom I’d not seen for some years, like the host, the American Conservative Union’s David Keene…

Well, we now know more about what might have been driving Keene’s lateral expansion. To paraphrase social philosopher Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Any doubt that the America’s conservative movement isn’t well into Phase Three has been dispelled by the news that CPAC’s sponsor, Keene’s American Conservative Union, recently attempted pay-for-play with FedEx.

Currently UPS and FedEx are at war over some minor legislation involving union regulation. Conservatives shouldn’t have a stake in this fight one way or the other. Neither company cares about the free market. They support and oppose regulation based on what suits their bottom line, and harms their competitor, at any given time. Turns out the same can be said of the ACU.

The Politico webzine broke the story July 17 by publishing a leaked letter from ACU vice president Dennis Whitfield offering support FedEx’s legislation for the modest sum of $2,147,550.

Among the services offered in the letter:

1)“Leading a coalition of center-Right organizations and think-tanks in support of FedEx’s issues and concerns to maximize resources, efforts and impact.”

2)“Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and / or other members of the ACU’s Board of Directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”

3)“Emailing the identified voter activists, in 5 rounds, in order to educate them on the issue(s) and to urge them to call their Senators based on key dates. The ACU would include the phone number of their personal Senators directly in the correspondence.”

In fact, the $2.1 million was just the basic package. Other services from the ACU went up to $3.4 million.

FedEx did not respond to the offer. And two weeks later ACU Chairman David Keene’s name with ACU’s logo appeared on a letter directed to FedEx president Fred Smith, telling him he supported rival UPS’s position and asking the company to stop its anti-UPS “Brown Bailout” campaign with the painfully cheesy conclusion, “To paraphrase the words of Ronald Reagan, ‘Mr. Smith, tear down this website.’”

Caught red-handed, the ACU quickly issued a press release claiming that David Keene was only signing on as an individual, not a representative of the organization, and that its own support of FedEx—based wholly on conservative principles, of course, not financial contributions—was unchanged.

Keene’s letter did indeed include the disclaimer “Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.” There’s only one problem: Op Eds by Keene were part of the package deal offered to FedEx!

In the last few years, after the Republican Party began losing elections, all the D.C. conservative movement leaders began talking about how the movement had to get back to principles, blah blah blah. But of course the corruption endemic to the GOP went straight to the conservative movement. Jack Abramoff would pay op-ed columnists like Doug Bandow to write about his pet causes, and show up to Grover Norquist’s “Center Right” Wednesday morning meetings offering goodies to organizations who supported his clients.

Despite the talk about getting back to principles, nothing was changing. At one of Norquist’s meetings last year, a former ACU vice president turned corporate lobbyist gave a long lecture on how giving a tanker contract to Northrop Grumman was a conservative cause.

A charitable cynic might say that the pay-for-play lobbying in the conservative movement is just smart politics. We might not care about the feud between FedEx and UPS or Abramoff issues like trade relations with the Marshall Islands or the tax-exempt status of the Choctaw Indian tribe, but the money we get for promoting these causes helps fund important advocacy on issues like immigration enforcement.

This, however, is like the high-class call girl who begins by whoring herself through med school, but ends up walking the streets for crack. Abramoff’s causes included Puerto Rican statehood—and even worse teaming up with Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed to sabotage the Jordan Commission’s immigration reforms. When Congressman Mike Pence introduced his amnesty, hand-written by horse farmer and conservative donor Helen Krieble’s minions, David Keene was quick to jump on, writing a column in The Hill—the same one he offered to sell to FedEx—endorsing Pence’s amnesty as “an alternative that could attract support from reasonable men and women on both sides of the debate”

At the same time, Keene was sending direct mail letters asking for money from patriotic Americans who “think the government should be deporting illegal lawbreakers instead of rolling out the red carpet for them.”

In February, the Federation for American Immigration Reform [FAIR] produced an important study by Eric Ruark analyzing immigration lobbyists. In addition to the Amnesty Bills of 2006 and 2007, it also looked at bills dealing with E-Verify and enforcement. A whopping 98 percent of 521 businesses and organizations who lobbied on immigration opposed enforcement and supported amnesty. The pro-amnesty groups spent a grand total of 345 million dollars on lobbying (though in fairness, not all of that money went to promoting amnesty directly.) Only ten lobbyists opposed amnesty and they were not corporate lobbyists but member-funded patriotic immigration reform advocacy groups like FAIR, US Border Patrol, Numbers USA, and the American Legion.

The closer the conservative movement’s ties to lobbyists, the less we can expect from them on immigration.

In 2003, ACU Vice Chairman Don Devine did not give enough standing ovations at then-President George Bush’s address to the organization. David Keene wrote a public letter to Devine claiming “you have done incalculable damage to ACU and I hope you will have the good grace to resign your position as Vice-Chairman. If you don’t, I can assure you that I will ask the Board to consider removing you at our June meeting.” To add insult to injury he added “I no longer consider you … a personal friend”.

Don’t expect Keene to resign over the FedEx fiasco. At the most, V-P Whitefield might have to take the fall, with a generous severance package, and go back to his old job as a corporate lobbyist.

But it goes without saying that Keene and Whitfield committed much more “incalculable damage” to the ACU and the conservative movement as a whole than Devine’s decision to stand up (or sit down) against George Bush and for conservative principles.

More specifically, the FedEx fiasco confirms Peter Brimelow’s speculation, in his article on the ACU’s 2009 CPAC mentioned in my first sentence, about why the Conservative Establishment as presently constituted can never deal with America’s mounting immigration disaster: as he put it bluntly, “pressure from funders.”

http://www.takimag.com/article/conse...iples_whoring/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #83
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What whites owe blacks, and now you'll see the cats fly on their own petard, is that we owe our thoughts and duties to our white fellows who are fucked into paying for all the catholic/liberal craziness involved in extracting money at gunpoint from whites to subsidize black colonies in their white neighborhoods.
There is a difference between a Catholic and a liberal. If a Catholic wants to go to Senegal or the Congo to teach niglets to read, he's usually not doing it on our dime. The liberal, on the other hand, does believe in forcing us to give to nigs at gunpoint. I don't care if Christians want to waste their lives trying to feed or educate savages, as long as they don't force me to be a part of it.

I believe liberalism is just a secular version of Christianity, with the State replacing the Church. Welfare is the secular version of Christian charity. We were better off under Christianity than we are under liberalism.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #84
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities receive billions (CC $3B in the year 2000) of fed funds for relocating immigrants of color.
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #85
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Stone View Post
I believe whites are special, indeed superior. I realize that many white people, even on VNN, feel uncomfortable with that but it is the truth.

A simple assertion of our "right" to be amongst our own kind, to honor our own traditions, and to protect our heritage, is grossly inadequate in the face of the sort of aggressive slo-mo genocide being perpetrated on our people right now. We need to be more aggressive and assert our uniqueness and specialness as a people. Moreover, we need to tie that into a world view that we can rally around and assert.
Jews always say that we attack them because they're superior. Actually, I think jews and their allies attack us (white men) because we're superior, but unlike jews, we don't brag about it. Maybe we should.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #86
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
Catholic Charities and Lutheran Charities receive billions (CC $3B in the year 2000) of fed funds for relocating immigrants of color.
That's not good, but isn't the Pope who's going to put you in jail if you refuse to pay taxes to support this. It wouldn't make a lick of difference whether these charities were secular or religious.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #87
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Let me expand on that last post: Christendom has existed for over a millenia, but it wasn't 'til the latter half of last century that we opened our borders to mass Turd World immigration. It wasn't the Church that opened our borders.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #88
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kievsky View Post
Gottfried quote:

This has been their favorite jibe the past couple of years -- that Whites "have no culture," etc.
Christendom was a codeword for Whiteness.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #89
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John in Woodbridge View Post
The republican party is just about all neocons now.
What did the Republicans ever do for whites, anyways?
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 24th, 2009 #90
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman View Post
On point 4 - I agree our kids need to understand this stuff. My wife said "prejudice is a burden. I want the kids to make up their own mind." But I disagree - they need to understand this strange world so they aren't engulfed by it, and MAYBE if they're lucky figure it out by aged 40 after they've been beaten down by it. And, it's not so much about being a racist that is what sets us apart - that is secondary to understanding the jew.
I'm not going to force my views on my kids; if they're anything like me, that would send them running in the opposite direction. I figure the best I can do is to be honest with them about my beliefs, and let them decide whether I was telling them the truth when they're old enough. That's better than what my parents gave me. Everything I know I had to figure out for myself.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old July 26th, 2009 #91
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Gates Gate

Revolt of an Elite

by Elizabeth Wright [sharp Negress who has named the Jew] on July 25, 2009

Last year, on a radio talk show, New York City’s former Mayor Ed Koch voiced a cliche that’s near and dear to the hearts of many blacks. I was reminded of this cliche while hearing a version of it from a young white man interviewed in Craig Bodeker’s documentary A Conversation About Race. The man in Bodeker’s film remarked that he had seen his black friends “struggle” with racism. He had no details to offer about the nature of said “racism,” but he expressed dismay over something either perceived, or told to him. [See my review of the Bodeker film here.]

Similarly, Ed Koch had claimed that in this terrible society of America, “all blacks” face racism “every day.” According to Koch, from the minute a black leaves his home in the morning to go to work, he encounters ugly, persistent racism, which goes on throughout the day. My ears perked up, because I wanted to know in just which city or state or region were blacks being tormented openly and on a daily basis. Mind you, he was talking about the year 2008. Of course, he, like the young man in the Bodeker film, did not offer any examples of this horrendous treatment.

My instinct was to get in touch with Koch and challenge him to pick any black man, and go off to work with him, spending the entire day on his job, as well as remaining with him in the evening. I would have liked for Koch to come back on radio and report on the terrible, racist encounters suffered that day by that black man.

Of course, we know that no such encounters are occurring on a daily basis. The use of the term “racism” does not mean today what it meant to a 1930s black sharecropper, whose choices were circumscribed by realities that were out of his hands. These blacks cannot pin down specific instances of meaningful, substantive bias, that is, bias that negatively affects their daily livelihood.

The black who whines about facing a “struggle” is not prevented from going about his business, or living his daily life as he chooses. The society he now lives in places no life-threatening obstacles in his path. The degree to which he can prosper is determined by the limitations of his own natural abilities, and vicissitudes of his family, social circle, and upbringing—as is true for everyone else. The very real racism that prevented that 1930s sharecropper from expanding his choices in life is the only type of racism that matters.

However, there are clever blacks who insist on invoking the spirit of that earlier scenario and hyping the “pain of racism,” a disposition that a great many whites eagerly buy into. The goal of such blacks is to keep whites preoccupied forever with the Black Cause, while expanding the scope of just what constitutes “racism.” That scope, of course, must encompass the very thoughts in the heads of others.

Whenever I insist to some complainer that specific instances of racism be cited, he usually stammers and talks in generalities. “Well, you know what I mean,” he will intone, as if I’m supposed to fill in the blanks. What he means is that he takes offense at any form of rejection. Although all human beings face personal rejection at the hands of others, these blacks want exemption from such uncertainties in life. They want no leeway for personal discrimination against themselves.

Recently, a commenter on a popular blog expressed that lame black mantra, “until-you-have-walked-in-my-shoes,” by claiming that the white commenters in the forum, being people “who have never experienced racism on a daily basis since the time you were a child,” could not understand his anguish. Racism, every day, from childhood right into adulthood? Are we really supposed to buy that? And then he really poured it on, by claiming that this racism “makes your heart start to race, your blood start to boil, and tears start to form in your eyes.”


Pictured: Oppressed black folk

I suspect that if we were to probe deeper into this man’s grievances, we would discover some sticky stuff going on here. Does he cry whenever he finds himself rejected socially by a party or parties with whom he wished to engage? Does social rejection send him into mourning? Or, as in the case cited below, from a black blog, might he harbor a host of insecurities that only competent practitioners in the psychological counseling field could deal with adequately?

On the blog, Within the Black Community, black blogger “Constructive Feedback” writes about the black actor Boris Kodjoe, who complained about a delivery man, who made him feel “dirty and black,” at the door of Kodjoe’s mansion in Atlanta. Because it appeared from the delivery man’s attitude that he did not believe Kodjoe to be the owner of such a grand house, this apparently irked Kodjoe, so much so that he talked about it in public. Is this millionaire actor admitting that his own self-worth rests on the basis of what he thinks others are thinking about him—even a minimum-wage delivery man? Constructive Feedback observes:

This wealthy Black man’s self-worth is still subject to confiscation by the lowliest of service men who ring his door bell ... The only thing at play is the pathology that is resident in the minds of Mr. Kodjoe and other African-Americans who hand over their own self-worth for someone else’s blessing. We have people who wear their self-worth on their shirt collar, expecting everyone to validate them about their insecurities. They project these insecurities as “racial assaults” upon our entire race.

It was never put better. This is a subject that blacks discuss all the time, but most whites are fearful of contemplating. When the approval craved is not forthcoming, the cry of “racism” against the entire race goes out. And when a degree of deference cannot be extracted from a white especially, as in Professor Henry Louis Gates’s interaction with Officer James Crowley, this is another “assault” on the black community.

Constructive Feedback continues:

It is clear that the expectation was for the police to show due deference to this accomplished BLACK professor of great stature at this elite White school. The fact that his outbursts were responded to by the group of police men, just as they would have done to those of a less established person, the peanut gallery feels that this Black man was not treated fairly, per his position.

The blogger then facetiously asks, about this prestigious Very Important Person,

Why didn’t they know who Dr. Gates was when they confronted him? Didn’t they see him on television with Oprah and Chris Rock, as they connected with their ancestry in Africa from so long ago?

And, for those who understand the reference to the haughty, 19th century Harvard-educated W.E.B. Du Bois, he adds, “I detect some W.E.B. DuBois-esque “Talented Tenth” elitism among the commentators. Prof. Gates, director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute, appears to have taken on some of the airs of his mentor.”

What a mockery Gates’s behavior turns out to be, when we look at the pressure put upon black athletes and entertainers to behave respectfully, so they might be role models to the young. Yet here is this highly touted, prestigious Harvard Professor, who expels coarse vulgarities to a police officer, even spewing out the “Yo’ Mama” insult, like a common street thug, carrying on like the proverbial “Crazy Nigger.” Are we to believe that such behavior is not characteristic of this black V.I.P., this Distinguished Scholar?

Constructive Feedback asks just when will blacks feel they have enough societal control that they can move on and finally deal with the pressing realities that “are actually killing African-Americans.” The answer to his question was given long ago.

Black elites, those who have always had the power and the resources to ameliorate much of the suffering within the black community, made it clear from as early as the 19th century that their interests will always rest outside the group, even as they exploit the theme of “race” to personally elevate themselves. You need look no further than Henry Louis Gates and the entire entourage of professionals and academics, who covet white society’s credentials in their striving to be socially acceptable. Some of the earliest observations and commentaries by both blacks and whites about the American Negro personality still hold up (see especially Harold Cruse).

Yet even in these venues among whites that they have chosen, these elites remain in a combative stance, always pushing the envelope in a need to prove who they are. They have no more concern today about the genuine needs of the black masses than did their fathers and grandfathers. And, if given the chance, these elites would just as eagerly oppose Booker T. Washington for his temerity in insisting on putting the welfare of the masses first. So, the answer to the rhetorical question as to when blacks will move on and deal with the real stuff is: Never.

http://www.takimag.com/article/the_r...a_black_elite/
 
Old January 14th, 2015 #92
Orazio
Junior Member
 
Orazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 151
Orazio
Default

http://takimag.blogspot.com/2008/04/...ews-nazis.html

"Paleocons are essentially women. They like the appearance of risk, but the reality of security. It's always, always, always safety first and everything else last. What could be more prudent? And prudence is a virtue. Pretty much the only virtue. As vinegar is to cleaning solutions, so is prudence to paleocons. Black crime? Loxism? Open borders? Prudence gets it out.

Calling neocons Nazis allows the paleocon to attack the neocon while securing himself against charges of anti-Semitism. The pseudo-irony of the inversion affords the paleo-accuser a delicious feeling of cleverness. Look, mom, did you see what I just did?"
__________________
How odd of God,
To choose the Jews.---William Norman Ewer
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 PM.
Page generated in 0.15468 seconds.