05 November 2008

No Declaration of Independence

The Boston Globe here breaks down the Popular Vote state by state. You'll notice that no independent candidate got more than 1% of the vote anywhere -- except for Ron Paul's 2% in Montana, which was self-evidently a protest vote. The paper doesn't have a national total, but at first glance it looks like Ralph Nader did best of the lot, followed by Barr (whose performance must be especially disappointing to the Libertarians) and Baldwin. In just one state, North Carolina, can any independent even claim to be a spoiler. Barr's vote there is approximately equivalent to the tiny margin separating Obama and McCain, but the point is moot. That state hasn't yet declared a winner but the speeches have already been made.

It's obvious that the novelty of Obama overshadowed the novelty of independent parties. One of the beauties of the American Bipolarchy is the illusion it creates of a choice between persons rather than between parties. Some of us tear our hair out over the way voters will repudiate one party, then return it to power four or eight years later. They somehow convince themselves that the man not being the same is more important than the party being very much the same. Brand-name consciousness doesn't work both ways like it does in the actual commercial world. No matter how many times a Democrat or a Republican screws things up for the country, hardly anyone concludes that they'll never vote for that party again -- or if they do decide that, they forget their decision within four or eight years. Neither party ever becomes the "Yugo" of parties, indelibly identified with failure. That may be because the party primaries serve in effect as an opening round of the general election, so that whoever emerges as the nominee is a "proven leader" with an automatic degree of credibility and legitimacy that an independent candidate almost never matches. The Bipolarchy endures because people don't really hold the parties responsible for their candidates the way they'd hold a brand responsible for shoddy product. The constant turnover of personalities masks the persistence of institutional hegemony at the state and national levels. It's as if people really do believe that the Democratic and Republican parties are branches of the government, official and public rather than private entities. For such people, voting for another party might seem like amending the Constitution, or overthrowing it -- a revolutionary act. It may not be until more people are in a genuinely revolutionary mood that independent parties will have any success in this country, but you have to wonder what it would take to get people in that mood, and whether the experiment would be worth it.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Monkey Heil!

The inevitable has finally happened. A "Bedtime For Bonzo" black named Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States. The culmination of all the Civil Rights campaigns, 1954 to present, is finally with us. The whites of America, oblivious to the fate which awaits them, applaud the man whose life long ambition is to destroy them. They have just elected a black Marxist born in Kenya whose Moslem minister has preached the death and destruction of white America his entire life. This man aims to steal from whites and give to blacks. He calls it reparations for slavery. This man cleverly camoflauges his hatred of all things white by speaking of a "brotherhood of all the people". He lies through his teeth. The surface explanation for the election of Barack Obama, eight years of Republican incompetence, is false. The real explanation is fifty years of white deracination. No amount of financial mismanagement could induce a racially conscious and proud people to elect a monkey from Africa as their president. The election of Barack Obama is the conclusive proof that the American people are finished. Like the Romans of the late empire, the descendants os slaves now sits on the imperial throne.

hobbyfan said...

Can you prove any of this, punky? On the surface, you're just a bigot upset that McCain lost the election. I've got three words for you. GET OVER IT!!!!

crhymethinc said...

This is 2008, douchenozzle. There is no longer any room in this country for racist scumbags like you. With any luck, one of the first things Obama will do is find a way to make the crap that drivels from you illegal and people like you will either be exiled from this country, or put in a deep dark dungeon where you belong.

Do the yourself, your country, and the world a favor and go OD on some sleeping pills.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon, please! You need to translate from your own warped consciousness into the English language. What exactly is a "Bedtime for Bonzo" black as opposed to run-of-the-mill blacks? Are you equating Senator Obama with Ronald Reagan? From there you just lie. Obama is as much a Marxist as you are a Nazi. Jeremiah Wright is not a Muslim. Obama, to my knowledge, has not advocated reparations; if he had, you would have heard about it, and he probably wouldn't have been elected. He is not a descendant of slaves unless his African ancestors were enslaved within the continent itself, which is not what you meant. Nor is he a monkey. You can tell the difference by looking in a mirror. Why don't you go back to Africa and climb all the way back up the tree?

Loyalty to whiteness is treason to mankind, and in this era it's rather close to treason against the United States.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Touche! It looks like I got under the skins of the politically correct. Good. As for the asinine comments that Barack Obama is not exactly what I say he is, I suggest that you "monkeys" do a little homework. The information is all over the internet. Obama had many, many friends and advisors during his youth who were communists and far leftists. For instance, his dear friend "Frank" who had an UnAmerican Activities Committee file a mile long. Saying that Barack Obama is not a communist is like saying that Paul Robeson was not a communist. Reverend Wright has been giving anti-white genocidal sermons for decades. Do you expect me to believe that Obama attended those sermons for years but did not know what was being said? Your credulity is incredible, Mr. Wilson.

By the way, Mr. Wilson, are you white? Or are you one of the orangatans too? There is a mania about yor statement that "loyalty to whiteness is treason to mankind...and in this age, treason to the United States too." In actual fact, if the United States ceases to be a white country, it is finished. Let us look at the little island of Haiti, where every white on the island was killed by the black slave revolt against the French in the early 19th century. Haiti went from being the richest sugar cane island in the Carribean to the impoverished, crime ridden cesspool it is today. One could look at Rhodesia, South Africa and any other black African country where white rule was overthrown and find the same pattern.

Crhymethnic and Hobbyfan are badly mistaken if they think that I am perturbed by McCain's defeat. Not at all. McCain is a neo-con psycho-zionist who wants to nuke Iran off the map. Kosher conservatives are no better, and no worse, than a Harry Belafonte Marxist with an appealing shuck and jive routine. And yes, in this instance the monkey is much slicker than the white boy. Paul Robeson had a fine voice, although I only listen to him while drinking pink champagne.As for that raving lunatic 'methnic, does he ever have anything substantive to say?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

For those who doubt my assertions on "Frank" please go to the Accuracy In Media website and read all about it. "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member who was one of Barack Obama's closest friends and spiritual advisors during his youth in Hawaii. Obama had to know who he was. Davis was also a close friend and supporter of the aforesaid Communist singer, Paul Robeson. Davis had close connections with Harry Bridges, the communist labor leader who was influential in getting Davis his job as an influential columnist on a Honolulu newspaper. Bridges explicitly told Davis to use the newspaper job to spread communist propaganda. Do you really think youn Barack did not know or learn who Frank Marshall Davis really was? Obama also had many friendly contacts with the Democratic Socialists anf the Students For A Democratic Society, extreme leftist organizations generally sympathetic th the Communist Party. (I can hear it now. Are you saying, Anon1, that any college protestor of the '60's who belonged to the SDS was a COMMUNIST? Why, you must be Senator McCarthy! No, I am merely documenting provable connections whose cumulative value is plain.) And yes, Obama has provably come out for a global poverty relief program which would involve giving away massive amounts of US money. If you haven't heard about the coming reparations for slavery campaign, there is a very good reason you haven't heard about it. Did the media in the days of Martin Luther King reveal his communist background?

You are obviously intelligent, Mr. Wilson. But you seem to have grave problems dealing with simple facts of biology and documented connections. That is a problem of psychology and self-induced blindness which no amount of factual information, which I possess in abundance, can correct.

hobbyfan said...

Where did you go to college, pal? Jabroni University? As a friend of mine used to tell less educated minority customers at his shop back in the day, speak American!! You remind me of a pen pal I have in Long Island who wasn't too fond of either Obama or McCain, either, but his world-view is warped by worse conspiracy theories than this.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon, you've been called a "douchenozzle" and invited to kill yourself, and you call that "political correctness?" You really don't know who you're dealing with, do you? You're just someone who seems to have a problem dealing with individual people; hence your compulsion to generalize and label them and draw "connections whose cumulative value is plain." This habit identifies you as an evolutionary throwback and partially explains your delusional adherence to "whiteness." A complete explanation requires some exposure of the personal inadequacies that force you to steal self-esteem by associating yourself with some mythical power that you locate in skin color. Your desperation invites the assumption that you are nothing, even to yourself, without your asserted whiteness. I indulge your anti-semitism because your pseudo-intellectualism sometimes amuses me and I'm somewhat curious about the thought processes of madmen, but when the subject turns to people like President-elect Obama you seem to lose your cool and your comments become as embarrassing as the moment when the crazy uncle who tells a funny story finally soils himself. You can't even account for your own original idiocies. You won't even bother defending your misidentification of Rev. Wright as a Muslim, and you have no proof of your most risible charges against Obama except the inferences formed in your miswired brain. To write what you do on the subject, you must either be stupid, insane, or a plain malicious liar -- or a little bit of all three. That you live a perpetual lie is pretty obvious, but by now it may have become unconscious for you, which would explain your calling me blind for refusing to verify your hallucinations. The logic of your case, I fear, is pretty ruthless. Since you have increasing problems sharing the planet, the country, your home state or your home town with people outside your own primitive tribe, the best place for you is probably a padded cell, as white as you like,where you can be left alone with all your imaginary friends.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Hobbyfan appears to be a newcomer to these discussions. So far he says nothing. My English is perfectly staightforward. I have espoused no conspiracy theories in this particular discussion. All I have said is that the US was created as a white country and that Barack Obama, a man with both communist,zionist and Black Muslim connections, will destroy what is left of white America. So what conspiracy theory is Hobbyfan making reference to?

In past discussions I have asserted that the alleged "gassing" of six million Jews is a hoax. But this discussion is soley about the real character of Barack Obama. I have demonstrated that he has provable communist ties. He does. I will also assert that he has zionist ties. One of his closest confidantes is the Illinois Congressman Emmanuel Rahm. Mr. Rahm is a fanatical Israel Firster. Other Jews influential in his entourage (not all of them Zionist) are the very wealthy Crown family of Chicago, Penny Pritzker of the Hyatt Hotel fortune and the definitely anti-Zionist George Soros. His campaign manager was the extreme leftist David Axelrod. After gaining the nomination Barack Obama made a flamingly pro-Israel speech to placate his Zionist followers suspicious of his Black Muslim ties.

Barack Obama is not what he pretends to be. Neither are most politicians but Barack Obama is a particularly dangerous example. He makes for an interesting comparison with the assassinated Martin Luther King, Jr. King also had many documented communist connections. Those included his long time adviser and financial angel, Stanley Levison, who was both a communist and a high ranking official of the National or World Jewish Congress. He attended the Folk Highlander Communist training school in Tennessee (naturally, he did not really know what it was, just like Barack Obama did not really know that Frank Marshall Davis was really a communist). Many of his closest colleagues, like Aubrey Williams, had been members of the Young Communist League in their youth. King was a flaming apologist for the state of Israel before the black-Jewish rift began in the succeeding decades. His real background, including his girlfriend beating, his innumerable adulteries and his plagiarism of his doctoral thesis in Theological Academy were covered up by the media, just as the unsavory facts on Barack Obama are being covered up now. "The more it changes, the more it stays the same."

No one has argued yet with my assertions that blacks relapse into the jungle when white rule is overthrown. It is a universally observable tendency. No one can explain why blacks will not destroy the Us the same way they destroyed South Africa and Rhodesia. Instead of dismissing me as a "conspiracy theorist", why not try addressin the facts on both Barack Obama and black racial inferiority?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

I will do Mr. Wilson the honor of supposing that he posted his comment before my heavily documented material on Barack Obama appeared on his screen. Now that it is posted I suggest he read it. Mr. Wilson knows nothing about me personally anymore than I know nothing about him personally. All either of us know is what we read from the other. As a matter of fact, I have known a great many blacks ,individually who are not so bad, just as I have known a great many Jews personally who are not so bad individually. I have never had the slightest problems associating with any of them, personally or professionally. Therefore, the accusations are baseless. Umlike Mr. Wilson, I do not try to psychoanalyze people I haven't met. I know better.

As to the charge that I libel poor, misunderstood president-elect Barack Obama, I do no such thing. Start researching the connections which I have provided you. You will find that it is all true. If you hurl the dread charge of "McCarthyism" at me, I will only point out that all the evidence which has emerged from the former Soviet archives and the Venona Army Signal Corps decrypts substantiates McCarth's charges. All those he accused were, in fact, communists or operating within the communist orbit. Learn from experience, Mr. Wilson. This charge of "falsely accused" men has been heard before.

Finally, the nitpicking over Reverend Wright. The real issue is not whether the Reverend is a Muslim,; the issue is whether he was, and is, flamingly anti-white. He is-and Barack Obama never repudiated him in all the years he was attending Wright's sermons. He only repudiated Wright when it became politically expedient for him to do so. It would be like me running for public office and then trying to repudiate my "Holocaust Denial" past. (Or Mel Gibson doing the same thing.) You wouldn't believe it; why do you believe it coming from Obama?

Finally, the ridiculous attempts to paint me as a "loser". I retired after a very successful business career with a lot of money. That is how I acquired the time and leisure to larn all the things you never did. So please spare me the personal attacks. Try understanding that racial equality is a lie, lie, lie. Try to understand that Barack Obama is a very dangerous man and that the blacks and hispanics who elected him now believe that they have overthrown white hegemony in the US for good. Try understanding that they hate your white guts and all the bullshit about "equality for everyone" is eyewash and bullshit. And if you cannot understand it, you will have my sympathies as the Mau-Mau's of "snivel rights" disembowel you and eat your testicles for desert.

crhymethinc said...

The bottom line is:
You are a racist. You hate groups of people because of the difference in skin color, the difference in their culture or just because they're not cardboard cutouts of asses like you. You are no different than Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin or any other hood-wearing klansman. So again, I'll invite you to end your life. It is nothing more than a waste of resources that would be better spent on a ghetto-dwelling crackhead than on you.

To sum up:
You are nothing.
You are worthless.
You are a waste of human existence.
Your ideas are without merit or value.

If you really believe the crap you spout, you would have actually done something by now to prove it other than to continually allow the verbal equivalent of feces to drip from your mouth.

hobbyfan said...

In this case, ignorance is not bliss. Until you can substantiate your "facts", punky, no one's going to buy your claims in re.: President-elect Obama.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon, you are the only proven hater in the present discussion. By your own standards of association, I would have to conclude that you are, despite past disclaimers, a goose-stepping Hitler-loving Nazi, and that your disclaimers were lies. I see no reason to retract my assertion that your racism, your anti-communism and your hysterical ("lie, lie, lie") aversion to the idea of human equality is based on some pathological need to claim superiority to others by virtue of membership in some fictional group that you can't claim confidently on your individual merits. There is no other plausible reason for someone to hold your views, which could not take root, no matter how many random facts you collect, without a prior predisposition to hate. Since you ascribed my disagreement with you to a "psychological problem," I feel justified in my speculations.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

As usual, my critics have nothing to say other than to falsely allege that: (1) I have psychological problems and (2) that I hate everybody. Neither charge is true. I shall waste no more time trying to refute either charge.

The hard fact is that most people around the world prefer their own kind, not just whites. This is a universally observed tendency. It has nothing to do with "hate". The best way to tear a society apart is to force large numbers of incompatible people to live together. Racial interbreeding has terrible genetic consequences. It downgrades each race which engages in it. The resulting offspring are progrssively of inferior stock. It is no different than mating a plow horse with an Arabian stallion.

It is obvious that Mr. Wilson and company are unwilling to think past their ideological preconceptions. They call themselves enlightened"progressive" thinkers. And yet, they are utterly blinded by falsehoods which they have imbibed as truth. They ask for "facts" constantly yet treat provable facts about Barack Obama and Martin Luther King as "innuendo and speculation". I presume that police departments who identify mobsters by the same methods are equally deluded. Anyone who doubts the lesser intelligence and anti-social tendencies of blacks should merely look at the facts on crime. As for black behaviour in their natural habitat I have already covered that.

My problem is that I can see the truth and do not hesitate to proclaim it. As for Mr. Wilson and company, all they can do is spit venom and hiss.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Since Mr. Wilson is obviously an Ayn Rand "Objectivist" type I will try to disabuse him of the ideas that he obviously picked up from an old Rand essay which she published in an anthology called "Capitalism": The Unkown Ideal" published back in 1964. In this nonsense, Rand referred ro racism as the "most contempible form of collectivism" (sounds exactly like Mr. Wilson, doesn't it?). Race was a fictional, pseudo-scientific construct, disproved by science and only Nazi cretins believed in it, etc.,etc. I can almost recite the essay by memory.

I first started having doubts about Rand when I read her clearly absurd essay. I later learned that Rand, the supposed anti-racist, was a flaming Zionist who had no problems with Jewish racial superiority over Arabs. She never wrote a word of condemnation of preferential Zionist race laws imposed on Arab untermensch. I smelled a rat-and have been amply confirmed ever since. Mr. Wilson is not so wise.

In fact, racial equality is a lie devised by Jewish academics like Franz Boas. Mr. Wilson can consult Professor Kevin MacDonald's works for confimation. I have never argued that there are not exceedingly intelligent individuals in other races. The Japanese taught the supposedly all-mighty English (white supremacists, surely) a few things about the art of war in 1942. General Yamashita humiliated Douglas MacArthur in the Phillipines. Far be it from me to downplay the abilities of certain groups of non-whites. I will concede that even blacks, who I thoroughly detest, have capable individuals. Leontyne Price, the pianist Andre Watts, etc. I am far from the unreasoning bigot.

But I will not back away from my generalizations about race. Exceptions do not disprove the rule. People do prefer their own kind and there are sound genetic reasons for the preference. Now for the recurring claims that I suffer from low self-esteem. In fact, as anyone who has met me knows, I have very healthy self-esteem. I am not the most intelligent individual on earth and make no claim to be. But I am extremely intelligent, very well read and knowlegeable on many, many subjects. The charge that I have misassembled a vast array of facts to reach a perverted conclusion is the same one leveled against Kevin MacDonald by his critics. In neither case can the facts and their logical conclusions be rebutted. Professor MacDonald has an essay on his blog entitled "The Utter Normality of Ethnocentrism-For Everyone But Whites". That pretty well sums it up.

Samuel Wilson said...

Sorry, Anon, but I've never read anything by Rand, though I have watched the movie version of The Fountainhead. I derive my views on "whiteness" from historians like Noel Ignatiev and David Roediger. From the former I might commend "How the Irish Became White" as a sample of the argument. These probably aren't new writers to you, and you probably already have your answers ready, but at least your efforts will be properly directed.

Please understand this: the human race has to evolve or die. This means mixing is inevitable. You may prefer one race subordinating all the others, or some permanent division of the earth among the acceptable races, but the more likely result of any such attempts will be the annihilation of human life. We all have to get along, or else. How hard is that to understand? In any given place, it's individuals, not "races," that will live together. Since you deny that your aversion to blacks is universal, accommodation ought to be possible once you get to know more of them as individuals. I'm not going to dispute your assertion that your feelings are common to all races. As far as I'm concerned, that only places the same obligation on everyone if humanity wants to survive.

There are people on earth who have assembled facts in the belief that they prove the necessary existence of an omnipotent being who created the universe. At the risk of starting a new dispute with you, the facts they cite do not compel me to accept the conclusions they make. Your conclusions are probably less absurd, but your marshaling of facts is no more compelling. Some things do not necessarily follow from others in the way you suggest. The necessity of your inferences is the point in dispute. Your biases are doing the real work in your head which you credit to the facts you misapply. They are leading you to a dead end, but it seems like nothing can be done to stop you, and there seems to be little reason for me to try.

crhymethinc said...

You've already proven that you are nothing more than a low class racist. You don't need to "refute" it, it is evident with everything you post. You take a few facts, infer completely wrong conclusions from them. The fact that you have these wild fantasies about Obama wanting to "kill whitey" and that the "race" of Jews is evil proves that you are unbalanced at least and, in all probability, completely unhinged.

Racism is an ignorant, superstitious belief that one race is somehow genetically superior to others. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to back this up. Just because some other racist cracker wrote it in a book and some money-grubbing corporate racist published the book does not make it a "fact".

I could at least almost respect you if you just came out and admitted you hate people based on their genetic makeup, rather than try to invent "evidence" to support your ignorance.

Assholes like you really make me wonder if freedom of speech is really worth it. At the very least the hateful nonsense that continually drivels from ignorant monkeys like you should be illegal. It most certainly IS immoral. So again, I invite you to end your miserable existence, you hate-filled old coot. You and the rest of the Nazis and white-sheet wearing douchenozzles. You almost make me wish there were a hell so you and your uncle Adolph could spend eternity molesting each other while you burn.

crhymethinc said...

Normal scientific method is to make a hypothesis, gather facts, create tests and, if the tests bear out the hypothesis, you have a new theory.

What you do is make a foregone conclusion, then try to find facts that back your conclusion, completely ignoring facts that don't fit or that oppose your conclusion. You may have some college courses under your belt, but that does not prove intelligence. It just means you have a piece of paper that asserts you are competent to do a specific job.

Inso far as "refuting" you, since you've already made up your mind, it is pointless to argue. We can only continue to insult you hoping you either stop posting your shite here and go bother someone else, or we can find the right combination of words that so upset you, you have a stroke or pop an aneurysm and DROP DEAD.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Since Mr. Wilson is getting his ideas from Noel Ignatiev, it is small wonder that his brain is so thoroughly fucked up. Ignatiev is a Marxist quack of the first rank. It is true that Ignatiev has applied his ideas against racial primacy to the state of Israel. That at least earns him points for logical consistency. However, it in no way validates the soundness of his ideas (or the ideas of the equally fucked up Mr. Wilson). I have heard the Irish analogy before. It is specious logic for simpletons. The basic idea is that because the Irish were once considered outside polite society but later became acceptable to the same Engish-Americans who once scorned them, that this therefore proves that all racial/ethnic biases are equally specious. This might be called intellectual fish bait for shit-for-brains. It might be proper to apply this kind of analogy to Polish-Americans and Northern Italian-Americans who are racially indistinguishable from the vast majority of American whites and who share a common intellectual/cultural tradition. But to apply the same logic to Third Worlders of vastly different genetic make-up and dissimilar cultural tradtions is nonsense. There is no analogy whatever.

I will not deny that much blood has been shed over ethnic rivalries. The Poles versus the Germans, Hungarians versus Rumanians,Ukrainians and Poles versus Russians, Germans against Hussite Czechs, the list goes on and on. One major reason that America in its white heyday had so little of this ehnic infighting was precisely because Americans were, overwhelmingly, racially homogeneous and of a common English background. The major exception was, of course, the Civil War which had at its base, a racial foundation (blacks and slavery). The Irish and later, the Germans, were rather easily integrated into American society. The problems of assimilation were much smaller than those which have plauged Europe for centuries. The US is now in the process of a kind of racial balkanization. The splintering of the US between blacks, hispanics and a dwindling white elite will not usher in the utopia of racial utopia, as you so naively imagine. The result, rather, will be massive class conflict between incompatible groups and probable racial warfare as the economy collapses.

I made the mistake of imagining that you are intelligent, Mr. Wilson. But your invoking of Ignatiev really makes me wonder. Marxist quacks have gone from invoking the utopia of racial equality as a substitute for the utopia of failed communism. It is a merely the same virus in transmuted form. Racial equality between racially hostile groups cannot bring about utopia any more than the leveling of communism can bring the successful down to the level of the incompetent. As to the issue of priveleges in society, someone always has priveleges. It cannot be otherwise. Abolishing the priveleges of one group always brings in the priveleges of the new ruling class. But priveleges are not thereby abolished. If you do not understand this, Mr. Wilson, you are a fool. Blacks want privelege for themselves. They call it "affirmative action". Women say that "sex discrimination" should be abolished. But do not expect them to give up "Mother uber alles" in divorce court or to offer men first place on the life boats when the ship sinks. Ignatiev would have your shit-for-brain believe that privelege means white privelege. Other groups (Zionist Jews excepted ) do not believe in privelege and would never discriminate against anyone. Again, if you really believe any of this, Mr. Wilson, you are a "useful idiot". Just watch "La Raza" hispanics telling niggers not to try the same shake down game with them that they use against whites.

Utopia never comes from ignoring reality. Pretending that incompatible groups can be successfully mixed is a fool's fantasy. If you look at the country which is currently taking over, it is China. The Chinese believe in yellow power, Mr. Wilson, not the bullshit which befuddles your fucked up skull. The Chinese are rising; we are dying. There are many reasons for it but one thing is certain. A racially united country with a sound economy based on non-Marxist principles is going to walk all over a racially mongelized cesspool suffering from unrepayable debt. Ponder that the next time you read "flexi-jerk off" Ignatiev.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Hooray, hooray! "methnic" (probably a Jew from his incessant invocations that I "drop dead") has finally come up with a few feeble arguments. He accuses me of starting with my conclusions first and then looking for evidence to justify them. This could also be said of "methnic", although he lacks the brains to look in the mirror. I respond: the fact that Jewish communists posing as reputable academics like Franz Boas and Ashley Nontague say that racial equality is a fact does not make it so, either. The real test of ability is the real world. In the real world, without government assistance, blacks fail. They fail consistently in the United States, in Africa, wherever they go. Reputable scientists, such as Arthur Jensem, William Schlockley and the co-discoverer of DNA (who recently got himself in trouble by saying that blacks are less intelligent than whites) have said the same thing. It has been established that blacks have smaller brains than whites and considerably less development in the brain. Their IQ test results are constantly lesser, as is their performance in school and the real world. When this is added to their ten times higher crime rate and their savage behaviour in Africa, there can be no doubt that they are a lesser race. Only someone who takes Professor Ignatiev as his guide could be dumb enough to think otherwise.

"Methnic" can stop praying that I will drop dead. My health is excellent and it won't happen. He may give himself a heart attack if he cannot overcome his intellectual impotence in the face of vastly greater intelligence.

hobbyfan said...

"Vastly greater intelligence"? LOL!! Do us a favor and try out for "Jeopardy!". I'm sure they'll laugh you right off the stage!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 wrires:

"The Blessins Of Education"

Marxists used to argue that capitalism was the source of all evil. Now they argue that race is the source of all evil. It is the same nonsense in a new form. The preference for one's own kind is as natural and unchangeable as the desire to make a profit. Having failed in their effort to destroy the profit motive, these charlatans of Marx now attempt to anathematize the preference for one's own kind as the essence of all evil. Ethnic preferences lead to conflict, conflict leads to war, war is evil, therefore abolish war by abolising race as a concept. It is the logic of fools. Ethnic preferences can lead to war but so can a thousand and one other things. Commercial rivalries, religious fanatacism, disputes over contested territories and plain greed can also lead to war. Feminists claim that men cause wars. Then women start wars and the magic formula fails again.

People who cannot face facts on economics cannot face facts on race either. Any man who ever espoused Marx on economics probably has his head up his ass on every other subject as well. A notable example of insanity in academia is the Marxist anti-racist professor, Noel Ignatiev. Professor Ignatiev has poisoned the minds of thousands of students with his nonsense that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity". One dupe of his teachings is a blogist who goes by the pseudonymn of Samuel Wilson who operates something called "The Think 3 Institute". Wilson has imbibed the notion that overthrowing white supremacy shall usher in a millenium of "human rights" for all. If he merely examined the history of North and South America, plus the history of Africa he would know better. Human rights in all these locations were non-existent until they arrived with the whites. In America the Indians were utterly savage and slaughtered each other unmercifully. The whites who conquered them brought a much more merciful way of life. Whatever one thinks of the Spanish padres they were not even remotely comparable to the Aztec and Mayan priests cutting out living hearts with stone knives. The Indians saved from this fate by Spanish gunpowder had a higher opinion of white supremacy than the Marxist indoctrinated Sanuel Wilson. The blacks of Africa were slaughtering and enslaving each other for thousands of years before the British Empire gave them some semblance of peace through conquest. Herbert Lord Kitchener was a ruthless bastard, but the blacks fared better under English imperialism than they ever did under the Zulus. The results of removing European colonial rule are visible wherever "black democracy" has emerged. All black African countries are cesspools of murder, rape, starvation and "necklacing". (It is not whites who put rubber tires around the torsos of their victims and then burn them in indescribable agony.) Mr. Wilson thinks that all things which walk on two legs are therefore human. They are not.)

When human beings lose contact with reality they become like an immune system which has lost its white cells and its killer cells. Their brains lose their resistance to nonsense. No one who ever saw blacks in their natural state in Africa could ever believe for a moment that blacks were, or ever could be, equal with whites. The renowned Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who spent his entire life in Africa in a vain effort to improve blacks, was compelled at the end of his life to admit that uplifting blacks was an impossibility. He dismissed them as permanent children, incapable of ever rising above their incurable limitations. Dr. Schweitzer was no racist but a sincere Christian. He believed it his moral duty to serve his fellow man. But he was also intellectually honest. At the end of fifty years of effort he was compelled by the evidence of his own failure to acknowledge black inferiority. The pupils of Noel Ignatiev are not so bright. Like intellectual puppy dogs, they bark at the feet of their master as he spins fables of white evil and black humanity into their de-immunized brains. They forget that it was Marxists like their mentor who brought gulags and 100 million deaths into the world. They forget the poverty, despair and human suffering whiich Marxism in practice caused. They forget all the lies which the Marxist infested western press (or the Jewish infested western press, which is the same thing) spread to cover up the reality of Marxism. And then, like Mr. Samuel Wilson, they cannot conceive that the same Marxists who lied to them about these things would actually lie to them about the evil, wicked white race and the blessings of "humanity". Some people were born stupid; others, like Samuel Wilson, had to read Noel Ignatiev to get that way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

I took a look at the Roediger book, "The Wages of Whiteness". I wasn't impressed. It is certainly true that definitions of "white" have evolved over the years but the conclusion which the Samuel Wilson's of this world wish to draw from this fact are specious, as already noted. If one consults Professor Bendersky's "The Jewish Threat" or the writings of Kevin MacDonald, it is very clear that Anglo-Saxons of the late 19th century wanted to keep out Jews and Eastern Europeans as subversives and racial inferiors. In retrospect, I would say that they were right. It is well known that much of the support for FDR's "Jew Deal' came from eastern and southern european immigrants schooled in European socialist doctrines. I think they should have been kept out-particularly the Khazar Jews of Czarist Russia. However, the racial degeneration of the country is so far advanced that these are idle arguments at present. The real question with Barack Obama in office is whether any kind of white America will survive at all.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon, your compulsion to label things and people on small evidence betrays your intellectual limitations. I've read very little of Marx beyond the Manifesto, yet now I'm a Marxist and I suppose a Communist as well. Well, yes, I must admit it at last: Obama and I regularly attend the secret conclaves, but I only tell this to you, Anon, because your liquidation has been decreed by the Invisible Presidium. Icepick-wielding Mexicans at this very moment are on their way, having determined by the same textual analysis that identified William Ayers as the true author of Dreams From My Father exactly who you are and where you can be found.

But seriously:digging out from your avalanche of commentary, I've yet to find anything to disprove the premise that a predisposition to hatred and supremacist fantasies is the necessary and sufficient prerequisite to your accepting the theories of Prof. MacDonald, et al. Can you tell us if there was a time when, as an adult, you were not a racist? If so, what hit you? I find it hard to believe that anyone could be convinced to despise large groups of people from books alone. After finishing that assignment, try this one: why do you persistently characterize a multicultural social revolution, especially one presumably instigated and controlled (according to your perverted imagination) by Jewish people as a sequence of mass assaults by one race on another?

As things stand, you've already revealed yourself as a conservative among the conservatives, of the kind that always appeal to supposedly immutable human nature to claim that mankind cannot or should not do whatever you simply don't want to do. You have nothing constructive to contribute to the present day, and your own preference seems to be to hunker down in your little fortress and wait for the hordes to come. Well, go ahead and wait.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Mr. Wilson, your problem is that you are simply too stupid to evaluate evidence. You refer to a minimum of evidence when in fact there is a maximum of evidence for everything I say. Normally people of my frame of mind are denounced for being ignorant hillbilly types who have done virtually no investigation. Then, when I demonstrate that I have done overwhelming investigation into all the subjects I discuss, you and your followers accuse me of your offense; i.e. starting with a priori assumptions and then trying to back it up by misinterpreting the data.

In fact, there is absolutely no basis for claiming that blacks are equal with whites in cognitive ability. Repeat: None. All the evidence, from IQ tests, to academic performance to the history of the real world, gives the opposite conclusion. Now you may not read Marx, but by your own admission you get your ideas on race from a quack Marxist professor named Ignatiev. So what am I to conclude? Arguing whether blacks are less intelligent than whites seems to me as sophistical as arguing whether Jews were disproportionately involved in communism or whether, a la Joan Peters "And From Time Immemorial", there were Arabs living in Palestine before the coming of the Zionists. Are you really serious?

You mock my claims about Barack Obama's true connections. There was a time when the Rosenberg's and Alger Hiss were considered innocent by the same clear thinking types such as you. Need I belabor the point? You babble on and on about my "misinterpreting" evidence. But all minds interpret evidence differently. This is true even of minds which generally agree. I will use Professor MacDonald as an example. MacDonald believes in the theory of Darwinian evolution. I do not. (Neither do I believe in the story of Biblical creation. I support, a la Professor Buhle, "intelligent design".) It seems clear to me, that from a purely scientific viewpoint, that the Darwinian theory fails every evidentiary test. MacDonald disbelieves the Khazar origins of Eastern European Jewry. I largely do believe it. I take every issue one at a time.

Your basic assumption that mixing races dissolves tensions rather than exacerbating them, is provably wrong. You either cannot, or will not see, that the best way to promote tensions and conflict is to force incompatible groups to live together. Just look at Palestine. Forcing unwanted Jews into an Arab country did not lead to the peace which had hitherto prevailed. Forcing Third Worlders into a country founded by and populated by whites shall not lead to peace and brotherhood either.

I read, write and research voluminously. I like to know what goes on in the world and who made it what it is. If I do not believe that the present shape of things is entirely coincidental, that does not make me a mad conspiracy theorist but rather a man who has connected some very important dots of which you are unaware. I do not waste my time with the John Birch Society or babble about the Illuminati and Freemasons. But I know a great deal about the Jewish impress on the modern world. There is a provable international force at work. I have outlined some of the evidence in previous discussions on Patrick Buchanan's book. I will reccomend a recently published book to you. It is "The Jewish Revolutionary Tradition" by the Catholic scholar E. Michael Jones. If you take the time to read even a third of it you will discover that there is massive competent historical research to support everything I say.

You ask whether my mind set comes soley from reading books. Of course not. I live in the real world like everyone else. I know enough not to wander around the black areas of Loiusville, Kentucky or Cincinatti, Ohio at night (or even Oakland, California where I used to live). I know this because I watch the evening news and can read crime statistics. I recall that back in 1977 there was black murder gang named the Zebras who gunned down 71 whites in cold blood on the streets of San Francisco before they were stopped. Van Amberg and Channel 7 news bent over backwards to apologize for them. Had the KKK hanged one black in San Francisco this same media would have screamed for a "hate crimes" prosecution. Little anomalies like these do not seem to make any impression on your "mind", Mr. Wison. But they make a grave impression on mine.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Now to address your mocking satire on my "fantasies" about a secret praesidium behind the scenes. If you think a certain power out ther does not have the power to destroy you at will, I will give you an example of how it can and will. An American desighner of execution equipment for prisons named Fred Leuchter went to the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to do an on scene forensic investigation. He had been retained by A German living in Canada named Ernst Zundel who had been put on trial for publishing "false news"; i.e. "denying the Holocaust". Mr. Leuchter had been the chief consultant (in fact, the only consultant) of American prisons on the technology of executing criminals, particularly gassing them. Fred Leuchter adamantly maintained his sincere belief in the existence of the "gas chambers" but agreed to do the investigation anyway. Much to his amazement, his investigations led him to the opposite conclusion to which he testified at Ernst Zundel's trial. Guess what? After this episode no American prison would any longer deal with Fred Leuchter. His career was destroyed. Why did this happen? It happened because of the behind the scenes pressure of that "secret force" which you so mockingly deny. Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Wilson. Go to work and start suggesting that "Holocaust Deniers" may be on to something. Before you know it you will be unemployed, unemployable and starving. But you will not have a ton of money to fall back on, like me. Welcome to the real world, Mr. Wilson.

Samuel Wilson said...

I thank Anonymous1 for calling my attention to a 70s crime wave I knew little about. The crimes are known as the "Zebra killings," but Zebra only denotes the radio code for reporting the murders. The reputed perpetrators were called the "Death Angels," a fringe of a fringe, splintered from the Nation of Islam and supposedly convinced that killing whites would earn them merit points toward paradise. The actual number of killings attributed to Death Angels is relatively low, but detectives involved in the investigation speculate that related, unsolved crimes -- possibly as many as Anon mentions, if not more -- could be credited to the group. There are two books recounting the case, one published in 1980 and now out of print, and a more recent memoir by a black detective who went on to become the SF police chief. This account has stirred controversy since the author claims that his investigation was impeded by racism within the force, while critics claim that he exaggerates both the racism and his own role in cracking the case. This latter account is slated to become a movie with Jamie Foxx in the lead role, but you don't have to be Anon to wonder whether a film with such an explosive topic, even with a black man as the hero, will actually be made.

For our purposes, it should be noted that the crimes were perpetrated by a religious cult, or a sect of a cult (the NOI) that has historically advised against race war in the belief that "Allah" will deal with the "white devils" in His own time. Religion seems to be as much to blame as racial antipathy, since the Black Angels' insane mythology provided the incentive for the killings. And since Anon brings up the Klan, it's worth noting that even the high estimate of "Zebra" killings is but a small fraction of the body count accumulated by the older, white-sheeted organization.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

I note that Mr. Wilson has nothing to say about what happened to poor Fred Leuuchter courtesy of that international force which does not exist. Ok. So let's talk about the Zebra killings. I know for a fact that the kill total of whites was close to 70. I was there at the time listening to the news reports. Facts are facts. These whites had committed no crime and did not deserve their fate. That is more than can be said for the blacks strung up by the Ku Klux Klan, most of whom had commited murder or rape and richly deserved their fate. Those blacks deserved it just as much as the Jewish communist partisans the Germans regularly executed in Russia.

Mr. Wilson argues that the Zebra murders were not racially inspired because the Nation of Islam says that Black Jehovah shall deal with the whites in his own way. That is clever, Mr. Wilson. Am I expected to believe that if whites gunned down 71 blacks that the racial motivation would be denied? Ten years ago, four whites in Wichita, Kansas were murdered by two blacks after being tortured and raped. The national media blacked it out. Does the perpetual black lover, Mr. Wilson, think that if four blacks had been raped and murdered by two whites the same black out of silence would have occured? There are gangs of blacks from the Carribean in Florida right now who specialize in beheading whites. All the police departments know it. The Jew controlled press keeps it "deathly" silent. Are these black butchers motivated by "religion", Mr. Wilson? (Presumably their parrots and voodoo dolls made them do it.) If Mr. Wilson will consult "The Color of Crime" by Jarrod Taylor, publisher of American Rennaissance, he will discover all the ugly facts about black-on-white crime which the media liars cover up. I won't bother to recite the facts. Mr. Wilson can do that himself. Then he cannot accuse me of quoting out of context. Mr. Wilson should spend a six month vacation in maximum security prison taking black cocks up his asshole on a daily basis. Then he will discover what blacks (individual ones only, not the black race, naturally) really think of his juicy white tushy.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

A few more choice comments for Mr. Wilson, 'methnic, Hobbyfan and all those other "wise men" to consider. When black churches were being burned right and left a number of years back in the American south, the media went nuts. White racists were doing terrible things to those poor, innocent blacks. The TV outrage was indescribable. Then it turned out that a Jew was setting the fires. The story and the screaming vanished, never to be heard again. The same thing happened in France in the 1980's when Jewish graves were being desecrated with swastikas. Then some Jews got caught as the perpetrators. Once again, the story disappeared. Notice a pattern here, guys?

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon, should I assume from your research recommendation that you've already done field work in a prison? It'd explain your attitude if you had. Meanwhile, you misconstrue my comments on the Death Angel murders. Obviously there's a racial motive, but it seems to me that the cult motive was the necessary and sufficient one because it provided the perverse incentive. Likewise, if in the alternate scenario you propose the white killers belonged to a cult that fact would certainly be emphasized alongside racial animus. Next, you exculpate the Ku Klux Klan and by extension endorse vigilante justice. By your own logic I must assume you to be a secret Klansman unless you want to confess your affiliation up front. Either way, congratulations: you're a terrorist, and your anonymity is now more understandable.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

"The Shiite Zionism Of Barack Obama"

The case of Barack Obama and Martin Luther King, Jr. form interesting comparisons. The media covered up King's communist connections during his lifetime, just as they cover up Barack Obama's now. King's communist connections were legion. His chief advisor and fundraiser was Stanley Levison, a communist and World Jewish Congress official. Numerous of King's closest friends and advisors were also communists. Bayard Rustin and Aubrey Williams were two good examples. King attended the Folk Highlander communist training school in Tennessee. Supposedly he did not know what it really was. King plagiarized his doctoral thesis in theology at seminary school the same way Barack Obama forged his "American" birth certificate. Obama had a very close childhood friend, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a lifelong communist. Naturally, Obama did not know "Frank" was a communist, anymore than Saint Martin knew that the Folk Highlander Training School was communist. (Men of politics are so naive.) Barack Obama has many other interesting connections. He has been a long time associate of the communist Bill Ayers and the Chicago Jewish Marxist labor agitator, Saul Alinsky. No one should be naive enough to suppose that Barack Obama actually shares the beliefs of those he associates with. That would be "guilt by association", the same horrid principle by which right wing Congressional investigators slandered Robert J. Oppenheimer as a communist, just because his bother and all his closest friends were Communist Party members. Barack Obama is a misunderstood man of "progressive" political beliefs, just like Lauchlin Currie, Owen Lattimore, Harry Dexter White, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss and all the other poor, misunderstood men and women who somehow managed to follow the Party line while exercising their "independence" of thought.

As any lawyer would know, Barack Obama cannot be a communist because the Soviet Union no longer exists. There is no longer any Party Central Committee to direct him. There are only swarms of "Red Diaper Babies", many of them Jewish, to point him in the direction of progress. Martin Luther King had a dream, Jesse Jackson had a scheme and Barack Obama has the magic carpet of "red revolution". President Obama calls himself a Muslim. But rather than practice Sunni Orthodoxy, he practices Shiite Zionism. Eradicating "Holocaust Denial" shall be his crowning achivement.

(Read this one boys, then call me "a liar". You shit heads would not know a fact if you tripped over one.)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

My criminal record is absolutely clean. Not a day in jail, anywhere. That is more than I can say for the future prime ministers of the state of Israel, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both of whom were wanted by the British Palestine Police Force for crminal acts of murder, bombing and sabotage. I also believe that black messiah of the 1960's, Malcolm X, had quite a criminal record in his early days.

How you figure that I am a "terrorist" is beyond my comprehension. Your use of words is rather imprecise. In re prison, does your shit-for-brain think that it is whites who are fucking blacks up the ass? Vigilante justice is deplorable but no one can deny that it is sometimes necessary. I would rather have vigilante justice than a frame up of O.J. Simpson to reverse a wrongful acquital in a double murder of twelve or so years ago. And no, I do not aspire to join the Ku Klux Klan which is 90% FBI informers, anyway. I would rather read, write, publish and toy with my intellectual inferiors, like you.