|
June 22nd, 2012 | #81 | |||
Switching to glide
|
Quote:
"Quantity has a quality all its own". Either Stalin or Charlie Sheen said that, and it's true. The pool of observant whites we have to draw from is getting bigger every. single. day. A growing percentage of those people won't be complete fuck-ups or mentally ill, and when that percentage reaches a certain critical mass, an organization like you describe will be possible. And yeah, if someone like say Gen. Petraeus or a similar figure was to head-up such an organization, I believe things would get very interesting in America very quickly. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder Last edited by Donnie in Ohio; June 22nd, 2012 at 06:21 AM. |
|||
June 22nd, 2012 | #82 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
|
Alex,
I'm not fully awake yet today, so forgive me if I'm missing something in my interpretations........ In a nutshell, you believe (as I do) that there should be a Federal Level Umbrella that encompasses smaller white states. These individual white states will form and organize themselves according to their particular cursory beliefs (sects or denominations if you will), and yet be bound together by overall racial beliefs. Now, my question to you is, here and now: Each one of the "forums" in reality, is the cyberspace equivelant to the individual white states. Each forum has their own particular beliefs and policies (or lack thereof) when it comes to the cursory issues. Yet, if you were to ask any member from any of the forums - we all believe in the preservation of our race (or should). In a physical manifestation, the individual states would be autonymous and yet would still work together in defense (support of the Federal Umbrella) and for the betterment of our race as a whole. Right now, my point is, I see NO coordination or collusion between the "forums" to accomplish anything beyond that particular forum's beliefs. As of yet, we have no Umbrella Leadership for us to unite behind, and I'm afraid it will be quite a while before the circumstances for such leadership to be formed are still far off. If we are to ever see a physical manifestation, we must first work with what we have. Don't you think that a coordinated message and effort on behalf of the forums should be made in order to begin the process of change? I addressed it below, and gave an example of what I am talking about. Quote:
|
|
June 25th, 2012 | #83 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
|
A Random Thought
Whites do not reproduce at or above the physical replacement rate. The ONLY answer to this problem is to raise the level of reproduction to and above the replacement rate.
This is a simple FACT. And yet, when confronted with this fact, so many "WN's" call it a "breeding war", and that it is not the answer. Really? The answer to being below the replacement rate is NOT to increase reproduction? Then what IS the answer? Never had it explained to me by these people. Just one more example of why our "community" is dwindling into nothing, and will never be a "movement". For if a person cannot understand this fact, they will understand NOTHING. I don't understand people at times. |
June 26th, 2012 | #84 | ||||
Administrator
|
Quote:
First, you're using cursory wrong. It means quick, shallow, hasty. These state or microstate divisions would be deep, not superficial. They would involve significant worldview differences on everything but race, which is a question that would already have been resolved, and not be questionable or changeable moving forward. Since whites disagree on politics, and since we are not jews bent on creating misery by forcing together those that don't get along, let the now all-White body politic divide up the ways it sees fit. I can't imagine how that would work out, but I use microstates to describe the resulting bodies because I think even the fifty states we have now are too few. Quote:
Quote:
I make the greatest possible distinction between online activity and the real world. This is why I don't allow new members to use fantasy names of the type that are common at Stormfront, and, I assume, Kelso's forum. Since there is no real-world party, unless you count A3P, which I don't, there is no particular reason to coordinate anything between online expressions of hostility to the reigning anti-White regime (with certain exceptions related to the terms we use). I follow Hitler on this. His view was that one tendency within a movement must win out, must be seen to triumph over all the others by virtue of its demonstrated superiority - then it is time for people to unify behind that group. We are not at that stage yet. The right thing to do is infight, argue with ourselves, until one tendency dominates in the form of an established party. Premature unity, or calls for unity, amounts to nothing more than blather, the natural example being the Protocol declared in New Orleans by Duke and Black and conference attendees a few years ago. If there's no agreement on the most basic stuff, and there is not, then any unity is premature. And even if there was agreement on the most basic stuff (say we finally got people to agree that neither jews nor those who work with jews and accept them [Jared Taylor] are on our side), 'unity' would still mean little if we're all nothing but onliners. So again, in my view, now is the time to fight it out. That fighting should be conducted by certain rules (see my stickied "How to Infight"), if the people we're arguing with are worth respecting. But merely lumping people together because they seem to share basic ideas leads nowhere. We need hard ideological, impersonal politics, and when you just lump everybody to the right of Obama together, it's just a big mushball. By contrast, if you have principled beliefs backed by men who apply them impersonally and don't deviate from them, and put their lives and forturnes behind it - then you have something. Then you don't need numbers to dominate. Quote:
Even so, I don't doubt that Black or Kelso really do want a White nation independent of the jews. Since I think they are wrong about how to achieve that, I go my own way, and basically try not to mention those two unless they force my hand with animadversions against our forum and our posters' character. Last edited by Alex Linder; June 26th, 2012 at 07:31 PM. |
||||
June 26th, 2012 | #85 | ||||
Administrator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As always, it matters far less who doesn't agree with us than who would actively fight us (1), and who we have on our side and how tightly organized and disciplined we are (2). If our position is the basic position, understood or merely felt, of the vast majority of white men, and I believe it is, then we will always be the default solution for our people, and can no more not be appealing to them than men can refrain from being sexually appealing to women. For this reason it is always mildly amusing to head-shaking, this confused insistence on our need to appeal to people. That's not how it works. Our concern must be the technics of taking power - that's where the problem lies. The people, in the deep sense, cannot not be with us. I really do believe you can take that as an article of faith, if only because it can be demonstrated. Last edited by Alex Linder; June 26th, 2012 at 07:36 PM. |
||||
June 26th, 2012 | #86 | |
Administrator
|
Quote:
|
|
June 26th, 2012 | #87 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Quote:
If we ever expect to gain control of our countries back, then we have to stop handing our money over to the Jews and only buy from our own people. Otherwise its all a lost cause. Jews account for only a little more than 2% of the U.S population; and yet 50% of the 400 richest Americans are Jews.....not 2%, but 50%. 50% of the top richest people appearing in Forbes 400 Richest Americans can be found in the Jerusalem Post's World's 50 Richest Jews The World's 50 Richest Jews (those appearing in the top 100 of Forbes 400 Richest Americans are shown in red): Larry Ellison Michael Bloomberg Sergey Brin Lawrence (Larry) Page Steven Ballmer George Soros Michael Dell Mikhail Fridman John Paulson Roman Abramovich Ronald Perelman Carl Icahn George Kaiser Joseph Safra Sheldon Adelson James Simons German Khan Serge Dassault Len Blavatnik David and Simon Reuben Alain and Gerard Wertheimer Philip Green Sammy Ofer and family Steven Cohen Viktor Vekselberg Alexander Abramov Eli Broad Dorothea Steinbruch Ira Rennert Michael Kadoorie David Geffen Stephen Schwarzman Isak Andic Ralph Lauren Samuel Newhouse Jr. Micky Arison Leonid Mikhelson Henry Kravis Lester Crown Leonard Lauder Richard S. LeFrak Donald Newhouse George R. Roberts Bernard Sherman Samuel Zell Pyotr Aven Frank Lowy and family Arnon Milchan Leonard Stern Jews appearing in Forbes 400 Richest Americans that were not included in Jerusalem Post's World's 50 Richest Jews: Mark Zuckerberg Donald Bren Eric Schmidt Daniel Ziff Dirk Ziff Robert Ziff Henry Kravis Paul Milstein & family Stanley Druckenmiller Bruce Kovner Riley P. Bechtel Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. Theodore Lerner Steven Spielberg Warren Stephens David Tepper Stephen Ross Daniel Och Haim Saban Joan Tisch Edgar M. Bronfman Ronald Lauder Mitchell Rales Steven Rales David Rubenstein Mark Cuban Malcolm Glazer & family Steve Wynn Tom Gores Bruce Wasserstein Nicolas Berggruen Leon Black William Gross Michael Milken Sumner Redstone Leslie Wexner Stewart Rahr Alan Casden Thomas Pritzker Jerry Speyer Israel Englander Penny Pritzker Sheldon Solow Robert Friedland Henry Samueli Thomas Friedkin Alec Gores Irwin Jacobs Anthony Pritzker Jay Robert Pritzker John Morgridge Isaac Perlmutter Wilma Tisch Neil Bluhm Robert Kraft Stephen Mandel Daniel Pritzker James Pritzker Jean (Gigi) Pritzker John Pritzker Karen Pritzker Linda Pritzker Marc Rich Lynn Schusterman John Sperling Mortimer Zuckerman George Lindemann & family Bernard Marcus Daniel Abraham John Arrillaga Alfred Mann Michael Moritz Michael Price Tamir Sapir Alfred Taubman Ken Fisher David Gottesman Marc Lasry Edmund Ansin Ron Baron Leon Charney Glenn Dubin Donald Fisher Doris Fisher Jeremy Jacobs Sr. Gary Michelson Arthur Blank Jeffrey Greene Thomas H. Lee Herbert Simon Peter Sperling John E. Abele Norman Braman John Fisher Nicholas Pritzker Alexander Rovt Margaret Whitman Leon Cooperman Barry Diller Joseph Mansueto Marc Benioff A. James Clark Robert Fisher Alan Gerry James Irsay Michael Krasny Daniel Snyder Henry Swieca Peter Lewis Nelson Peltz William Fisher Pincus Green Jeffry Picower Steven Schonfeld Walter Shorenstein & family Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler Charles Zegar Jeffrey Lurie Nancy Lerner Randolph Lerner Last edited by Steven L. Akins; June 26th, 2012 at 08:00 PM. |
|
June 27th, 2012 | #88 | |
Switching to glide
|
Quote:
I had a real Blade Runner moment yesterday while on the way to a coney shop of all places. Things can change a lot in 30 years. And wow, has America changed.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder Last edited by Donnie in Ohio; June 27th, 2012 at 09:47 AM. |
|
June 28th, 2012 | #89 | ||
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
|
Quote:
Quote:
Look at it like this: With global population numbers approaching 9%, and the reproduction rate dropping even lower than it is currently (which is already below replacement rate) and interracial relationships and bi-racial child births on the rise.........I don't believe that we can wait for the conditions to be "right" to start having more children. In only a few generations, whites of whole European descent will be effectively extinct. That, IMO, is the endgame. The one thing that we all believe is there should be a future. In most basic terms - that means we actually have a white race on this planet. Unless we increase reproduction - whether the "time and place" is right - we won't have a white race to populate a "White Nation". Notice I'm saying (w)hite race instead of White race. I don't care if the children are raised by leftist lunies.....at least their children are genetically white, and therefore are part of a future breeding pool for our race's existance. The most basic and fundamental answer to dwindling numbers worldwide is the easiest. Have babies! And it's the easiest answer that each of us has the power, right now, to accomplish. When will the population percentage be "low enough" to wake people up to this fact? 5%? 1%? .5%? I see a direct correlation between why people are waiting longer to have their first child, and why WN's believe the "time and place" have to be right to have children. It's exactly the same thing, just on different scales. On a personal level, people want their lives in order "just so" before they consider having a family, so they wait. On a social level, WN's want the socio-politico-economic conditions "just so" before reproduction makes sense. Either way - both mindsets lead to dwindling population numbers worldwide. |
||
June 30th, 2012 | #90 |
Self imposed ban
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The redwood forest
Posts: 787
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
No matter what whites do, we're not going to outbreed groups like Latinos and SE Asians. These are groups who seriously just pop 'em out like bread loaves from a baker's oven. They don't have high marriage rates, if they marry they divorce soon after, fathers are not essential in their childrearing, they see nothing wrong with having every one of their children coming from a different father. Not only can whites not compete with something like that, we shouldn't!
The reason why we've been able to build the strong and coveted societies that we've built is because our family practices have been so unique in this world. Long term pairbonding, marriage as a sacred institution, childbirth out of wedlock is not the ideal, fathers present in the daily lives of children. These are the pillars that have created so much of our success. You can already see the effect that watering down and negating these traditional corner stones of the family is having. Today, most whites are little more than niggers in lighter skin. Where I live, even though it's still a majority white town, it's as scummy as all hell. It's a town full of white tweekers and prostitutes, white do nothings, white bums, white criminals, white fat asses, white welfare mothers with niglet children. If these people of my town were to breed to the scale of Latinos, for instance, there would be no intellectual difference between their offspring and the offspring of the common Mexican whore. It's not like we're going to somehow magically reclaim the mantle of our former society just by popping out kids. The societal structures have to be in place to mold kids into adults worth having around. I don't know about where you live, but where I live those structures are so gone, seriously, I'm just shocked daily by what I'm seeing around me. The problem is not too few of us, but too many of them. As an aside, is the tweek problem this bad anywhere else? Literally half the people in this town are tweekers. Is this the norm where everyone else is?
__________________
Hell really is other people. |
June 30th, 2012 | #91 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Quote:
Crystal meth, marijuanna, and who knows what else are epidemic problems among Whites in the area where I live. The people who do these are totally worthless, devoid of any value, and should be fed arsenic. |
|
June 30th, 2012 | #92 | |||
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Quote:
Quote:
As far as the tweek problem, not much of a noticeable problem where we live. Quote:
Akins, do you differentiate between the "casual" consumer of marijuanna and the casual consumer of alcholol? How about the casual consumers and the hard core addicts? Is it the "abuse or addiction" problem that makes these people worthless, or is it a more puritanical ideology that drugs are bad? Where do things like alcohol and tobacco fit into the equation of worth? |
|||
June 30th, 2012 | #93 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
I am not going to name names, but over the years, I have seen that some of our best activists used to be addicted to drugs. I am more inclined to let drug abusers kill themselves off and allow those who finally wised up, to be productive members of Our Cause.
|
June 30th, 2012 | #94 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The South
Posts: 187
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Quote:
Reason I ask, I've been victimized so much by these pieces of white shit. Try as I might to help, I get this from our own? Sorry for the slight pity party. |
|
June 30th, 2012 | #95 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Quote:
That being said however, I do think that drugs are worse. Particularly hard drugs such as crystal meth. It is a poison that kills the soul; while marijuanna is a pacifer for the week and generally worthless; the lotus-eaters. Quote:
|
||
June 30th, 2012 | #96 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Quote:
But do not be fooled. Drug addicts are excellent liars and con men. |
|
July 1st, 2012 | #97 |
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: N. California
Posts: 2,374
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Oh yes. I live in what seems like the tweeker, bum, crackhead and heroin whore capitol of the world. And boyyyyyyy, do I hate them.
|
July 1st, 2012 | #98 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
|
Re: Random Thoughts, All Things White
Thank goodness we have "Deputy Butterbean" on the job, busting tweakers and cleaning up the streets....
|
September 16th, 2012 | #99 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
|
Who to vote for in November?
I've mentioned this a couple of times elsewhere, but have been thinking more on the subject.
Who to vote for in November? I'm so disgusted by both the republican and democrat party - they really are two sides of the same damned coin. I don't really see any differences between them anymore. Both are destructive for our nation, our economy, and our way of life. People think that republicans are the answer, and they are so misinformed. Republican policy and their grab for power will still destroy the country, albeit at a slower pace. I've actually considered voting for Obama in November. My reasoning? When you are staring at the edge of the cliff, and are going over it no matter what, why delay it? Another 4 years of Obama will be disastrous for America. So much so, I feel it would bring about the end - it would hasten the SHTF scenario - the complete breakdown that we all see on the horizon. I crave this end. Bring on the apocalypse, the death of this sick and twisted society, so that we can emerge from the ashes. I've said it many times that there must be a catalyst in order for massive, sweeping change. Things must become as bad as they were in Germany at the beginning of the 20th Century. Things must be as bad as they are now in Greece. Another Obama presidency would almost surely put us in that situation. I could only hope for a Democrat Congress as well. I can't vote for a nigger. That's my quandary. I cannot stomach the idea of voting for him. I cannot stomach the idea of voting for Romney, either. I'm tired of the slow bleed. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is not appealing. When every vote for a candidate or party is viewed as validation for their position - an indication that the public supports their policies and philosophies.......no thank you. I do not support Romney, the Republican Party, or their ineffectual pussy footed apologetic philosophies. I do not support the insanity of the democrat party. So, I am left with this quandary. I cannot and will not support either candidate. Do I withhold my vote? As a registered republican, a low voter turn out would show the voting base's disgust with the direction the party is headed......or would such simply be ignored as apathy? Do I write in a candidate, thus invalidating my vote? Doing so would only indicate that I used the voting machine incorrectly, both parties claiming these misguided voters supported their positions (once again validating). In the end, I am leaning towards a no-vote, as there is no way to indicate a vote being cast under protest, no way to indicate the vote was not one in support, but in opposition to the other candidate. I think I will sit back this November, and watch what transpires. Bring on the End. |
September 20th, 2012 | #100 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
|
So, the other day in our son's history class..........
The class was reviewing the history of South Africa, specifically Nelson Mandella. Our son raised his hand, and informed the teacher (and the rest of the class) that the history book is flawed, and full of inaccurate information. The history teacher asks how so. Our son then hijacked the class, and went on a 30 minute diatribe about the realities of Nelson Mandella's rise to power, the forces that were backing him, and the attrocities that he and his wife committed. All of which were not only not mentioned in the history book, but were in direct contradiction to what was held therein. When the bell finally cut our son off at the end of class, the history teacher asked to see him. The teacher asked him what his sources were for his information. Little did the teacher know that our 16 year old spent all summer researching this subject, and has a notebook full of facts and sources. He traveled down that rabbit hole. Our son pulled out his Ipod, gave the teacher more sources than he could handle. Boom, boom, boom, boom! The teacher accepted him at his word, then asked if he needed a hall pass. To which our son said, "Yes sir, have a great white day." GILAMUT! **edit** I say this because we need to educate our youth to not accept what is written and taught in the "educational system" at face value. The "establishment" has written history to support their agenda, regardless of it's validity or factual basis. Our racially aware son, and his history teacher by allowing him to espouse his point of view and arguement, has planted a seed to the other 20 something students in his class. There are not many quality educators out there that would allow a student their point of view, to discuss a 'revisionist' arguement. That teacher, by allowing the discussion to take place, immediately lent credence to what our son had to say, and for that I'm grateful. However, our son was argumentative to the point of being sent to the principal's office with a substitute just days earlier when he would not sit idly by and let her lie to the class unchallenged. We, as WN's can learn something from the fanatical idealism of our youth. Last edited by Mr A.Anderson; September 20th, 2012 at 07:53 PM. |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|