12 November, 2008

Rahm Emanuel and the Mandatory Public Service Plan

Posted by Socrates in Jew World Order, jewed culture, jews in America, Jews in government, nation-building/nation-wrecking, New World Order, Obama, sayanim, Socrates, Zionism at 7:37 pm | Permanent Link

What a great way to brainwash millions of citizens. After “special” training at government facilities, they’ll be ready to serve Zionism/globalism/any other “-ism.” Won’t those citizens really be a gentile corps of sayanim?

[Article].


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 10/19/07 England and the EU Treaty 36% similar
  3. 08/07/07 The Birdman and Islam 30% similar
  4. 03/30/08 The Lisbon Treaty 28% similar
  5. 03/05/08 Not in England, Either 26% similar
  6. 12/16/13 America: a Constitutional Republic? 24% similar
  7. 47 Responses to “Rahm Emanuel and the Mandatory Public Service Plan”

    1. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      (from a blog)

      “Notice they don’t answer the first question and the second question makes the assumption that just because something is constitutional it’s OK. It also assumes that just because the US Supreme Court says it’s constitutional it is. While in the legal system that may be true the 13th Amendment seems pretty clear to me.

      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      If I must participate in some service against my will it seems to me to be by definition involuntary servitude/slavery. The 13th Amendment forbids that. I don’t care what some people in black dresses say. Conscription is both unconstitutional in that it violates the 13th Amendment and it goes against the concept that government is created at the consent of the governed to protect their rights. If the 13th isn’t enough you can take a look at the 5th and 14th too.

      The reason these additions are noteworthy is that xyz had emailed them directly requesting what would occur if an individual refused to serve. She has yet to receive a personal reply but the FAQ as we have seen has been updated with a poor answer.

      If there is no punishment for failing to participate in the “mandatory service” then it’s not mandatory just like “mandatory” participating in the census is in fact not.”

      http://blogofbile.com/tag/mandatory-national-service/

    2. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      (from a blog)

      “Notice they don’t answer the first question and the second question makes the assumption that just because something is constitutional it’s OK. It also assumes that just because the US Supreme Court says it’s constitutional it is. While in the legal system that may be true the 13th Amendment seems pretty clear to me.

      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      If I must participate in some service against my will it seems to me to be by definition involuntary servitude/slavery. The 13th Amendment forbids that. I don’t care what some people in black dresses say. Conscription is both unconstitutional in that it violates the 13th Amendment and it goes against the concept that government is created at the consent of the governed to protect their rights. If the 13th isn’t enough you can take a look at the 5th and 14th too.

      The reason these additions are noteworthy is that xyz had emailed them directly requesting what would occur if an individual refused to serve. She has yet to receive a personal reply but the FAQ as we have seen has been updated with a poor answer.

      If there is no punishment for failing to participate in the “mandatory service” then it’s not mandatory just like “mandatory” participating in the census is in fact not.”

      http://blogofbile.com/tag/mandatory-national-service/

    3. Curious Says:

      “The real magic starts when you power Sarkozy with his ex-model wife. She, after all, played a part in the freeing of the Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian medical doctor. She, too, is of *Spanish-Jewish ancestry*. But, that may be nothing but an insignificant aside. France, generally, regarded their bust-up as something of a bad joke. ”

      Well, well.

    4. jim donaldson Says:

      I can just see all those kids now, so cute, running around in their little red scarves! Waving their little black “Sayings of President Obama” books! (Or is that too obvious a parallel?)
      If Bush had come up with this (not that I’m any fan of his), they’d all be screaming “Hitler Youth!”

    5. wagner Says:

      Libertarians are one-trick ponies when it comes to the Racialist worldview, to them we are all “collectivists,” then again, they are scared little rabbits:

      Editor’s Note: This article has been linked to by a white supremacist website known as the ”Vanguard News Network”. We the staff of “The Smoking Argus”, wish to ensure our readers that we in no way agree or support their collectivist philosophy based on uneducated fear. The Smoking Argus believes the only criteria worthy of judging an individual is the content of their character.

    6. Allison Says:

      Hello, I am the author of the blog post linked to in this post. However you might wish to reconsider after learning that I am a lesbian.

      Anywho, I realize I cannot change any of your minds regarding your beliefs and I support your right to free speech, however it is my view that tyranny calls no race or ethnicity home.

    7. JewTracer Says:

      Cuntish kike.

    8. jim donaldson Says:

      “…it is my view that tyranny calls no race or ethnicity home.”
      Huh?

    9. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      This country was founded on rights AND groups (actually, one group, Whites)- THE ONLY GROUP CAPABLE OF PRACTICING INDIVIDUALISM.

      “Naturalization is the process by which people can become citizens of a country they were not born in. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Article I, section 8, clause 4). Soon after the Constitution was ratified Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103). The act provided

      that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States….”

      http://www.answers.com/topic/naturalization-act-of-1790

      See John Birdman’s essay The Libertarian Blind Spot (Race and Groups) http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbtn/Lbtn-LibertBlindSpot.html

    10. Zarathustra Says:

      Allison, your highfalutin’ statement about a “collectivist philosophy based on uneducated fear” will get flushed down the toilet as soon as you and you dyke girlfriends get lost and find yourselves driving in a nigger slum neighborhood. Door locks will go down, windows will be rolled up. And if the black savages attack, your hip, liberal, affluent homo and lesbo friends won’t help you, Mlle Carpet-muncher.

    11. snakeman Says:

      This lesbian Allison is nothing more than a liberal elitist who is pissed that Clinton is not President. I’d say ban her from VNN, but then, that’s what her Marxist site does to real freedom loving white men and I’d hate to be a hypocrite….
      Pussy eating, Jew loving, Marxist queers should have no place at VNN but then again, “we are the good guys”…

    12. sgruber Says:

      The fact is that humans organize into groups for rational reasons. Try collecting the garbage without teamwork, for example.

      And deeper than that, all animals are objectively members of groups, based on physical facts of family or race. Which helps the survival of your genes: saving the life of your sister’s children, or saving the lives of a total stranger’s children? All animals, including humans, are programmed to prefer the former, for good reasons. It’s a good strategy in the competition for survival. The opposite of this strategy simply results in your line’s extinction. Which, as a lesbian, you are ensuring: you are helping to extinguish your family and your people, ensuring that they will not be around in future. Their traits won’t survive. Their curiosity, their intellectualism, their lovable and valuable traits – will be gone forever, probably replaced by hordes of niggers, utterly stupid creatures. But you will get a gold star for being a good radical individualist. Whoop-de-do.

    13. Osama bin Laden Says:

      Allison calls us uneducated but she wouldn’t last 60 seconds in a serious debate about the facts of racial differences and ethnic group interests.

      These people love to shout slogans and one-liners to denounce racialism but have little intellectual substance themselves.

    14. sgruber Says:

      “But at least I’m leaving a legacy of books or writings!” cries the radical individualist.

      But in a nigger world, who will read them? You’d better make sure your writings are in gutter Spanish, or in Ebonics. With lots of pictures. And that they’re about bling, fucking, and food. NIgga don’t know from John Locke, baby, sheeeiit!

      Only White children can have the curiosity and intellect and stamp of mind to appreciate the products of White culture. It’s all alien and irrelevant to Africans. Bye-bye, your contribution. Unless you have readers – unless there are people like you in the future.

    15. sgruber Says:

      Race MATTERS. In the long run, it matters more than anything else.

      Every race on the planet understands this. Every race proudly and chauvinistically promotes its own. Only Whites don’t – because we’ve been convinced over the past 200 years that we’re evil and should sacrifice ourselves out of existence, leaving behind a non-White world. Who convinced us? Our greatest competitors: a tiny, hostile minority; in fine, jews – who are not White and don’t identify as Whites, but are the primary anti-Whites.

      DEATH TO THE JEWS.

    16. Cpt. Candor Says:

      Excellent commentary, sgruber. Radical individualism is parallel to internationalist collectivism in a few ways, with the libertarian “individual” corresponding to the liberal-collectivist “all mankind,” which is like saying “all mammals,” or better yet, “all worker ants.” A planet filled with down-bred dregs who almost universally prefer log-thump thug-noise to mozart and magazine literary garbage to a well-written novel is not something I’d declare a desirable outcome, but then again, I’m not someone who looks at places like Haiti and Africa, and then at our current President-elect, and foolishly thinks that we’re not going to experience a noticable downslide in the direction of Turd-World conditions under him. The fact that he has surrounded himself with jews, the same people who founded and administered that (thus far) unequaled monstrosity called the USSR, makes things look even less rosy.

    17. Igor Alexander Says:

      I certainly agree with individual rights and freedoms to a degree, but no man is an island. If society weren’t necessary for our survival and advancement, it wouldn’t exist. If you want to see how long you’d last as an individual, get yourself parachuted in the middle of a forest, jungle, or tundra, and see how long you last.

      There has never been such a thing as absolute personal freedom, and there never can and will be, because we need society to survive, and society cannot long continue as a group of self-centered individuals. Individualism today has been taken to absurd extremes. A lot of people are now simply incapable of thinking outside of individualistic terms and seeing the big picture. These “individuals” are going to have a rude awakening when they find themselves targetted as members of a group by members of other groups.

      As for Allison being a lesbian (très chic, Allison!), maybe she should take a good, long, hard look at how the majority of blacks, Mestizos, Muslims, Arabs, and Asians feel about homosexuals, and then reflect on the fact that as the white population continues to shrink due to immigration and differential birth rates, she’s going to become a tiny despised minority within a larger despised minority.

    18. Igor Alexander Says:

      “I’d say ban her from VNN…”

      She won’t be back anyways. She was expecting a slew of silly ad hominems from a bunch of cave-dwelling knuckle-draggers, but instead got a series of intelligent responses whose core argument she is unable to refute.

    19. Igor Alexander Says:

      The woman who runs that blog is an imbecile. Check out her ridiculous and undeservedly hostile response to Anthony’s polite comment that “concern for the survival and self determination of one’s own people is not collectivism.”

      I left the following comment on her blog, which I am also posting here since it hasn’t been approved and I suspect she may be cherry-picking the posts she wants to respond to. I wish I hadn’t bothered, because there’s no way to get through to someone who thinks like that. Broads like that could get savagely gang raped by a pack of niggers and still be going on about “liberty” and how we mustn’t prejudge people.

      Here’s what I posted (quoted text are her comments):
      ==========

      “Every human is inherently free….”

      Not so. No man is an island. There is no freedom without collectivism. Get yourself airdropped in the middle of the wilderness and see how much you enjoy your “inherent freedom.”

      There is a reason nearly all groups of living things tend to stick together: there’s strength and safety in numbers. United we stand, divided we fall.

      “In your mind, liberty is a benefit to be bestowed only upon certain people worthy according to your people group’s narrow definition.”

      Liberty is to be bestowed on a citizen of the nation. As a practical matter, there is no way to bestow liberty upon every human being on the planet (unless you naively believe that that’s what the U.N. has set out to do). The nation has the right to define its citizenry in any way it chooses. It has a right to defend its borders and set limits and criteria on immigration. It has the right to preserve itself and its heritage. It has a right to protect its citizenry.

      There is more to life than just “individual freedom”; there are no “individual freedoms” without collective or national rights and freedoms.

      “So the fact that Hitler was white and used government to crush liberty for other whites, how does your twisted intellect account for such?”

      Hitler did no such thing. If it hadn’t been for Hitler, the Soviet Union would have encompassed all of Western Europe, and possibly the whole Western world. German citizens under the Third Reich were as free as they could reasonably be expected to be under the difficult circumstances of the time.

      Hitler deserves the free world’s gratitude, not its scorn.

      “Because you sir, are a disgrace and only drag the rest of us down who genuinely seek freedom in your delusional comingling of tyranny with irrelevant ethnic traits.”

      Lady, you are so out of touch with reality that words alone won’t help you. You are going to be fucked when whites become a minority. The Fed is going to be the least of your concerns when your entire neighborhood looks like South Central Los Angeles and you’re afraid to leave your house or apartment to go to the grocery store. Don’t you get that?

      This is no longer a matter of “individual rights and freedoms,” it’s a matter of survival. Individual rights and freedoms don’t mean shit if you’re living in a country where your personal safety is at stake.

      And BTW, none of the Founding Fathers agreed with you on the subject of race. Perhaps someone else will be nice enough to fill you in on that.

    20. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Aviation, Geography, and Race
      by Charles A. Lindbergh
      featured in Reader’s Digest, November, 1939, pp. 64-67

      Aviation has struck a delicately balanced world, a world where
      stability was already giving way to the pressure of new dynamic
      forces, a world dominated by a mechanical, materialist, Western
      European civilization. Aviation is a product of that
      civilization, borne on the crest of its outlook. Typical also of
      its strength and its weakness, its vanity and its
      self-destruction – men flung upward in the face of God, another
      Icarus to dominate the sky, and in turn, to be dominated by it;
      for eventually the laws of nature determine the success of human
      effort and measure the value of human inventions in that
      divinely complicated, mathematically unpredictable, development
      of life at which Science has given the name of Evolution.

      Aviation seems almost a gift from heaven to those Western
      nations who were already the leaders of their era, strengthening
      their leadership, their confidence, their dominance over other
      peoples. It is a tool specially shaped for Western hands, a
      scientific art which others only copy in a mediocre fashion,
      another barrier between the teeming millions of Asia and the
      Grecian inheritance of Europe – one of those priceless
      possessions which permit the White race to live at all in a
      pressing sea of Yellow, Black, and Brown. But aviation, using it
      symbolically as well as in its own right, brings two great
      dangers, one peculiar to our modern civilization, the other
      older than history. Since aviation is dependent on the intricate
      organization of life and industry, it carries with it the
      environmental danger of a people too far separated from the soil
      and from the sea – the danger of that physical decline which so
      often goes with a high intellectual development, of that
      spiritual decline which seems invariably to accompany an
      industrial life, of that racial decline which follows physical
      and spiritual mediocrity.

      A great industrial nation may conquer the world in the span of a
      single life, but its Achilles’ heel is time. Its children, what
      of them? The second and third generations, of what numbers and
      stuff will they be? How long can men thrive between walls of
      brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal
      and of oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of
      wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made
      beauty, the mineral-like quality of life. This is our modern
      danger – one of the waxen wings of flight. It may cause our
      civilization to fall unless we act quickly to counteract it,
      unless we realize that human character is more important than
      efficiency, that education consists of more than the mere
      accumulation of knowledge.

      But the other great danger is more easily recognized, because it
      has occurred again and again through history. It is the ember of
      war, fanned by every new military weapon, flaming today as it
      has never flamed before. It is the old internal struggle among a
      dominant people for power; blind, insatiable, suicidal. Western
      nations are again at war, a war likely to be more prostrating
      than any in the past, a war in which the White race is bound to
      lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead
      our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all.
      In this war, aviation is as important a factor as it has been a
      cause – a cause due to its effect on the balance of strength
      between nations, a factor because of the destruction and death
      it hurls on earth and sea. Air power is new to all our
      countries. It brings advantages to some and weakens others; it
      calls for readjustment everywhere.

      If only there were some way to measure the changing character of
      men, some yardstick to reapportion influence among the nations,
      some way to demonstrate in peace the strength of arms in war.
      But with all of its dimensions, its clocks, and weights, and
      figures, science fails us when we ask a measure for the rights
      of men. They cannot be judged by numbers, by distance, weight,
      or time; or by counting heads without a thought of what may lie
      within. Those intangible qualities of character, such as
      courage, faith, and skill, evade all systems, slip through the
      bars of every cage. They can be recognized, but not measured.
      They lie more in a glance between two men than in any formula or
      mathematics. They form the unseen strength of an army, the
      genius of a people.

      Likewise, in judging aviation, in its effect on modern nations,
      no satisfactory measurement of strength exists. It is bound to
      geography, environment, and racial character so closely that an
      attempt to judge by numbers would be like counting Greeks at
      Marathon. What advantages will they gain? What new influence can
      they exert? To judge this, one must look not only at their
      aviation but at them, at the geography of their country, at
      their problems of existence, at their habits of life.

      Mountains, coastlines, great distances, ground fortifications,
      all those safeguards of past generations, lose their old
      significance as man takes to his wings. The English Channel, the
      snow-capped Alps, the expanses of Russia, are now looked on from
      a different height. The forces of Hannibal, Drake and Napoleon
      moved at best with the horses’ gallop or the speed of wind on
      sail. Now, aviation brings a new concept of time and distance to
      the affairs of men. It demands adaptability to change, places a
      premium on quickness of thought and speed of action.

      Military strength has become more dynamic and less tangible. A
      new alignment of power has taken place, and there is no adequate
      peacetime measure for its effect on the influence of nations.
      There seems no way to agree on the rights it brings to some and
      takes from others. The rights of men within a nation are
      readjusted in each generation by laws of inheritance – land
      changes hands as decades pass, fortunes are taxed from one
      generation to the next; ownership is no more permanent than
      life. But among nations themselves there is no similar provision
      to reward virility and penalize decay, no way to reapportion the
      world’s wealth as tides of human character ebb and flow – except
      by the strength of armies. In the last analysis, military
      strength is measurable only by its own expenditure, by the
      prostration of one contender while the other can still stagger
      on the field – and all about the wolves of lesser stature abide
      their time to spring on both the warriors.

      We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a
      disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war
      which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the
      White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our
      civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental
      guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the
      Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to
      turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again.
      This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us.
      It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and
      Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our
      civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on
      strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western
      Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan
      or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a
      German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing
      together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength,
      dividing influence.

      Our civilization depends on peace among Western nations, and
      therefore on united strength, for Peace is a virgin who dare not
      show her face without Strength, her father, for protection. We
      can have peace and security only so long as we band together to
      preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of
      European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against
      attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.

      We need peace to let our best men live to work out those more
      subtle, but equally dangerous, problems brought by this new
      environment in which we dwell, to give us time to turn this
      materialistic trend, to stop prostrating ourselves before this
      modern idol of mechanical efficiency, to find means of combining
      freedom, spirit, and beauty with industrial life – a peace which
      will bring character, strength, and security back to Western
      peoples.

      With all the world around our borders, let us not commit racial
      suicide by internal conflict. We must learn from Athens, and
      Sparta before all of Greece is lost.

      Reader’s Digest, Nov. 1939, Vol. 35

    21. ED! Says:

      Hay Allison!

      Jew Jacob Schiff gave $20,000,000 to establish Communism in Russia! Homosexuality was considered a social pariah in the former U.S.S.R. which was founded by Jews! Go and look into how gays were treated under that Jewish idea! Watch what you wish for Allison, you may not like it when it goes into full swing!

      ED!

    22. Igor Alexander Says:

      “Aviation, Geography, and Race
      by Charles A. Lindbergh”

      Prophetic words.

      “featured in Reader’s Digest, November, 1939, pp. 64-67”

      Ah, those were the days! Try getting something even half as forward as that printed in a major magazine today.

    23. Marwinsing Says:

      “…it is my view that tyranny calls no race or ethnicity home.”
      Huh?
      Huh?

    24. Slow-Liberal-Death Says:

      A link that Allison may want to check out:

      http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3097355,00.html

      A quote from a feminist friend of mine:

      “It’s a very simple fact that
      European Caucasian men
      treat their women better
      than any other race on earth”

      (I swear to God that’s true)

      Of course the jewish controlled MSM would have you believe otherwise. If you wish to be guided by their lies then that’s your choice. Just make sure your willing to accept the consequences of your decisions.

    25. ZipZap McGee Says:

      This ditz calls us uneducated in virturally the same breath she uses “criteria” as a singular noun.

    26. The Red Skull Says:

      A national work program is just the start.Can you imagine the howls and screams if Shrub were to propose that?I responded to that silly lesbo in her comments section.She would not or could not refute what i said about the violations of free speech and assembly that i brought up about the Euro-Conference in Mississippi.She could only say we’re “stupid”,and have no claim to constitutonal rights,or to hide behind it.Somehow,being nazis abrogates your Constitutional Rights.I also pointed out how i’m sure she lives in a nice “white area” of town,and challenged her and any liberal meat sack to live up to their egalitarian views and move down close and LIVE WITH the muds she so claims to love.She could only say we’re violent and hateful.Challenge a Liberal with Racial Facts and they quickly devolve to name calling and poo-poo negation.She also had no comment on the FACT that over 36,000 white women are raped every year by niggers,as opposed to roughly 10 black women by white men.I predicted that when the time came,she and all others who thought like her would be at the pityless muds mercy and I and my Komerades would laugh and watch as the muds had some fun with her.Reasoning with doesn’t work,they are zog slaves who won’t wake until its too late.She also critized my spelling and grammer,i told her i don’t discount peoples opinions because they can’t spell perfect or have perfect grammer.In any case,it clearly showed they are scared of racial facts and truths.

    27. JewTracer Says:

      You know that’s the irony of the kike USSR isn’t it? Despite it arising out of the ideas of Jew Karl Marx and its bureaucracy being headed by Jews, it did not promote homosexuality like here in the Jew World Order West.

      Though I do believe in the early decades of the Commie Experiment, it was indeed promoted. Anything to break down the “bourgeois construct” of the nuclear family had to be tried… Including no-fault divorce, on-demand abortion (which were first implemented in the USSR) and it seems homo-promotion too.

    28. Dagon Says:

      Little Johnny to parents: “It is my duty to report you to the neighborhood block commisariat for improper sentiments concerning Comrade President Obama.

      Do I spy some Red (and White and Blue) Guards in our future?

    29. sgruber Says:

      Thanks for the magnificent LIndbergh article, shabboz.

      He was right. The White race was dealt a death blow by the World Wars. Caused by jews, for the advantage of jews.

      What good is “freedom for all” if it means the freedom of the nigger to ruin your neighborhood, city, nation, and life? I am not interested in the freedom of the East Indian, the Hottentot, the Hmung, or anyone but my people. The others are not for me, and are of no value to me. To the extent the alien prospers, I perish. Why would I be interested in his welfare? We are not alike, and the benefit of one is NOT the benefit of both. To the extent niggerdom is in ascendancy, it’s a world in which the intelligent cannot live.

      But libertarians are mostly racial suicidalists, willfully drowning in an unreal world of universalism and other abstractions in which only they will ever believe; for all their high-falutin’ attitudes, they are genuinely mad.

    30. sgruber Says:

      The Red Skull said

      She also critized my spelling and grammer, [sic]

      Boo-hoo-hoo! That’s one point for the labia-licker.

      It’s CRITICIZED and GRAMMAR. A third-grader who has the mental discipline to consult a spell-check program has more on the ball than you do.

      Helpful hint: look for the little red line under words you type here. That line indicates you may have made a mistake. Have the maturity to accept it when you are caught in a mistake, and the enterprise to correct yourself. Don’t just flip me or the world a bird like a dumb nigger. Being uneducated is no fault, but being lazy and touchy about it is.

      Until you pull up your grammatical britches, expect your ass-crack to be continue being “critized.”

    31. ZipZap McGee Says:

      snakeman says, “Ban her.”

      White men don’t censor. Jews, Amren and Stormfront censor. White men don’t censor.

      (Sorry if there’s any redundancy in the enumeration above.)

    32. JewTracer Says:

      Obviously white European man treats white European woman too good… Else we wouldn’t be burdened with the petulent Marxist child that is feminism: something which has prospered in white European lands as no-where else.

      I don’t think it’s any coincidence that some of the most Aryan lands such as Sweden and Norway are today cesspools of feminist political correctness.

    33. The Red Skull Says:

      Ahh,point well taken sgruber!Ha!I have too laugh at myself.Sorry,i do it the old fashioned way,without spellcheck.However,i will keep a dictionary close by for reference.However,I still think i shut the carpet-muncher down,even if she did have a point about how she CRITICIZED my GRAMMAR.I always did hate english class,does it show?

    34. gw Says:

      the FACT that over 36,000 white women are raped every year by niggers,as opposed to roughly 10 black women by white men.[RedSkull]

      In point of fact, I believe that statistic is actually zero to ten.
      (Just being technical here.)

      i don’t discount peoples opinions because they can’t spell perfect or have perfect grammer.

      Neither do I. (But good grammar helps reader comprehension. Paragraphs and punctuation help too.)

      Re. the Euro-Conference in Mississippi.She could only say we’re “stupid”, and have no claim to constitutonal rights,or to hide behind it. Somehow,being nazis abrogates your Constitutional Rights.

      Standard leftist argument. Especially common in Europe.
      Where in the American Constitution does it say that civil rights do not extend to stupid people? And who defines what is “stupid”? Whatsmore, of all ironies, these are the same people who make such a fuss about Civil Rights!!! Oh, but only in some cases, it seems. That doesn’t extend to YOUR rights.

      What good is “freedom for all” if it means the freedom of the nigger to ruin your neighborhood, city, nation, and life? I am not interested in the freedom of the East Indian, the Hottentot, the Hmung, or anyone but my people.[Sgruber]

      I believe it was President Adams who said: “While we are friends of Liberty everywhere, we are the guardians only of our own.”
      (Someone should tall Dubya that!)

      snakeman says, “Ban her.”
      White men don’t censor. Jews, Amren and Stormfront censor. White men don’t .

      [ZZ McGee]

      Excellent retort! Thank you! Censorship is the enemy of liberty. The enemy of thought.
      It is also the opposition’s last resort when it’s bereft of any argument.
      It’s an admission of defeat; so when reason can’t win (because it’s on the other side), force must be used instead. If they had an argument, they would use it.

      Ahh,point well taken sgruber!Ha!I have too laugh at myself…..I always did hate english class, does it show?

      It does. But you take criticism commendably well. :)

      JTSays: Obviously white European man treats white European woman too good… feminism [is] something which has prospered in white European lands as no-where else. …some of the most Aryan lands, such as Sweden and Norway, are today cesspools of feminist political correctness.

      Europe, especially away from the Mediterranean, ALWAYS accorded women much respect and many rights, and in many ways social and legal equality. This was far more so than found elsewhere in the world. (Feminists fail to appreciate this. Their movement would have gotten exactly nowhere in Arabia or Africa or China.) The existence of this female freedom among the ancient Britons and Germans was noted and commented on two millennia ago by the Roman writers. This did not weaken the Britons and Germans. It was a British queen who resisted the Roman invasion ferociously. Significantly, it was only in Northern Britain and Germany that the Roman armies finally met their match and were halted, and where the Roman invaders had to build walls to protect themselves from the indomitable natives.

      And Scandinavia has historically treated women with virtual equality … certainly more so than any other cultures outside of Europe. [An anthropologist might bring up some remote, tiny tribes in the Amazon or Philippines, but those would be cultural anomalies and are irrelevant on the world stage. Such tiny, primitive tribes cannot be considered “successful” cultures among the competing civilizations of the world.]

      So female equality in Northern Europe is nothing new. It lasted for thousands of years, right up until recently. The Viking woman had a lot of status in her society. That did not sap Scandinavians of their vigor. Only when Jewish-inspired Marxism (and all its sickly children such as feminism) invaded and poisoned their minds, and turned them against themselves, did Scandinavians/Aryans fall to their present pathetic condition. This has come about mainly within the past half-century.

      But, oh yes, to tell the truth, the process was really initiated back around the 1300s when Christianity was introduced. It was government imposed, but met with intense resistence from the people. The Vikings were proud barbarians and they were unashamed of it. It was Christianity that induced guilt. As an article in the National Geographic said: “The Vikings were barbarians, and they KNEW they were barbarians.”

      Either way — Christianity, Marx: same source.

    35. jim donaldson Says:

      Marwinsing : She forgot about the jews! : /

    36. Susan Says:

      Yes, great words indeed by Charles Lindbergh. And try to get that kind of article printed in today’s Reader’s Digest. Ha! A family member gets that little rag sent to me each month, and it’s getting noticeably more and more leftist and multicultural in its content and tone. I suspect it’s jew run like most nowadays. I’d never subscribe to it on my own. Most of the writing is pretty bad, actually, and it’s mostly a patriotard kind of rag now.

    37. gw Says:

      A family member gets that little rag sent to me each month, and it’s getting noticeably more and more leftist and multicultural in its content and tone. I suspect it’s jew run like most nowadays.

      It was considered very right-wingy many years ago. Stubbornly so, the to great annoyance of the Left. That was back around the Vietnam era. I guess, like the National Review, they’ve been taken over too. I haven’t looked at it in years.

    38. Jon Says:

      Allison Says:

      “Hello, I am the author of the blog post linked to in this post. However you might wish to reconsider after learning that I am a lesbian.”

      Sorry to hear about your affliction. May I recommend a cure?

      TRY SOME DICK!

      Jon

    39. Xerxes Says:

      What wuz her blog… The smoking Clitoris ?

    40. Susan Says:

      gw: You are right about how Reader’s Digest has changed over the years, or at least the perception of it has. I’m looking at the current issue right now. There’s an article with various famous people talking about people who have been “Great Inspirations” and I don’t think there’s a White man in the group. They’re all women, niggers, and/or jews. There’s another article about a doctor, could be a jew, who’s gone to Ethiopia and adopted five little niggers.

      There’s an article entitled “Keyboard Cowards” about. you guessed it, internet bullying on various websites. It mentions one website where a UCLA student was called “a stinky, ugly jew …the most hated slut on campus”. I don’t see any pro White sites named, but the intent is clear to me.

      It mentions two young women who had threatening messages, their photos, and comments that one had herpes and both should be raped, posted on an internet website, have filed a federal lawsuit against the dozens of anonymous users who made the comments. They’ve subpoenaed Internet service providers, have acquired some of the users’ names, named one pubicly, and are threatening to out more.

      Uh oh. Better be careful, fellas and gals, about what you say about someone on the web. It may come back to bite you in the ass one day. If you can’t stick to facts about someone, you might want to keep your mouth closed.

      But, about Reader’s Digest, it did used to be considered more conservative than liberal. I always remember hearing how bad the writing was too. It’s still not very well written. If you look at the page that lists the Editors and various department heads and writers, etc., you see some probably jew names, but not necessarily overwhelmingly so.

      It just isn’t correct or acceptable these days for anyone to be pro White. Period.

    41. Z.O.G. Says:

      Reader’s Digest doesn’t actually produce any articles of its own, as far as I know. It just reprints articles from other magazines and excerpts from current books. That’s why it’s called a “digest”. Duh.

    42. Stronza Says:

      What wonderful writing by Lindbergh.

      Re libertarians. Some of them are kookoo. I knew one, years ago, who wouldn’t walk on the street or sidewalk because it was publicly owned and built by civil servants with extorted money…I wonder if he still stays away from all towns & cities or if he has come to his senses.

    43. Susan Says:

      I’m not sure if the current version of Readers’ Digest is the same as it was years ago. I know that years ago, they did just reprint articles from other publications or portions of books, but I believe that has changed. The articles appear to be written specifically for RD. Some are written by ordinary individuals who’ve been involved in some life changing event (for example) or by professionals sharing something about their profession.

      There’s a lot of filler in each edition, that I know. LOTS of prescription drug ads (and I mean LOTS), lots of jokes, etc.

      Stronza: The most well known present day Libertarian probably is Neal Boortz. What do you think of him? Just curious.

    44. gw Says:

      “What wonderful writing by Lindbergh. ”

      Yes. But didn’t the, ah, “press” turn against him and turn him – virtually overnight – from a national hero into a reviled loonie and traitor? After that, he was off the national stage and pretty much persona non grata.

      And the highly respected Father Caughlin was similarly removed from the radio. (Both were anti-war.) No “hero” is secure, no matter how admired. Such is the power of the press.

    45. Zarathustra Says:

      Reader’s Digest……The magazine that was known for being in every old person’s bathroom next to the toilet and the glass with their dentures floating in it? No wonder that magazine has an image problem.

    46. Susan Says:

      HaHa. Yeah, I think I remember my grandmother having copies in her bathroom. As I said, I would never have subscribed to it on my own but it gets delivered to me every month, like it or not.

    47. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Great article by Murray Rothbard, who left the libertarian movement five years before his death:

      “Thus, Justin Raimondo pointed out, in pondering what went wrong with the libertarian movement, that the early movement of the 1970s grievously erred by deliberately cutting itself off from any sort of right-wing or any other culture or tradition in the United States. Following the spirit of Ayn Rand, of whom most libertarians had been ardent followers, libertarians claimed to be genuine individualists and revolutionaries, totally separate from the right-wing, and bringing to the world their own brand new political revelation. And indeed, the libertarian movement has always been almost willfully ignorant of any history or any aspect of foreign affairs. Arcane syllogisms of libertarian theory, science fiction, rock music, and the intricacies of computers, have been the sum and substance of their knowledge and their interest.

      Part of this grandiose separatism, which I did not fully realize at the time, stemmed from an intense hatred of the right-wing, from libertarian anxiety never to be connected with or labeled as a conservative or a right-wing movement. And part of that hatred has come from a broader and even more intense hatred of Christianity, some of which was taken over from Ayn Rand.

      To be specific, one important aspect of the recent shift toward statism and Big Government consists of a spill-over, of an infection, of libertarians’ political views by their deep-seated egalitarianism. Scratch an egalitarian, and you will inevitably find a statist. How does the libertarians’ burgeoning and pervasive egalitarianism square with their supposed belief in individualism, and for allowing every person to rise by his own merit unhobbled by government? The resolution of this problem is much the same as other, more common versions of Political Correctness.

      Libertarians are fervently committed to the notion that, while each individual might not be “equal” to every other, that every conceivable group, ethnic contingent, race, gender, or, in some cases, species, are in fact and must be made “equal,” that each one has “rights” that must not be subject to curtailment by any form of “discrimination.”

      And so, flying in the face of their former supposed devotion to the absolute rights of private property, the libertarian movement has embraced almost every phony and left-wing “right” that has been manufactured in recent decades.

      Shortly before I left the libertarian movement and Party five years ago, a decision which I not only have never regretted but am almost continually joyous about, I told two well-known leaders of the movement that I thought it had become infected with and permeated by egalitarianism. What? they said. Impossible. There are no egalitarians in the movement. Further, I said that a good indication of this infection was a new-found admiration for the Reverend “Doctor” Martin Luther King. Absurd, they said. Well, interestingly enough, six months later, both of these gentlemen published articles hailing “Dr.” King as a “great libertarian.” To call this socialist, egalitarian, coercive integrationist, and vicious opponent of private-property rights, a someone who, to boot, was long under close Communist Party control, to call that person a “great libertarian,” is only one clear signal of how far the movement has decayed.

      Indeed, amidst all the talk in recent years about “litmus tests,” it seems to me that there is one excellent litmus test which can set up a clear dividing line between genuine conservatives and neoconservatives, and between paleolibertarians and what we can now call “left-libertarians.” And that test is where one stands on “Doctor” King. And indeed, it should come as no surprise that, as we shall see, there has been an increasing coming together, almost a fusion, of neocons and left-libertarians. In fact, there is now little to distinguish them.

      Throughout the Official Libertarian Movement, “civil rights” has been embraced without question, completely overriding the genuine rights of private property. In some cases, the embrace of a “right not to be discriminated against” has been explicit. In others, when libertarians want to square their new-found views, with their older principles and have no aversion to sophistry and even absurdity, they take the sneakier path blazed by the American Civil Liberties Union: that if there should be so much as a smidgen of government involved, whether it be use of the public streets or a bit of taxpayer funding, then the so-called “right” of “equal access” must override either private property or indeed any sort of good sense.

      Thus: when Judge Sarokin, soon to be elevated, by bipartisan consensus in the U.S. Senate, to the august federal court of appeals, ruled that a smelly bum must be allowed to stink up a New Jersey public library, and follow children to the bathroom, because it is public and therefore he cannot be denied access, the national chairwoman of the Libertarian Party issued an official statement praising the decision. In the same way, libertarians join the ACLU in protecting the alleged “right of free expression” of bums and beggars on the streets of our big cities, no matter how annoying or intimidating, because these streets are, after all, public, and therefore, so long as they remain public, they must continue to be cesspools, although precisely how this is implied by high libertarian theory is a bit difficult to grasp.

      In the same way, the leading left-libertarian Beltway legal activist maintains proudly to this day that he was only following libertarian principle when, as an official of the federal Department of Justice – which in itself is not too easy to square with such principles – he aided the federal judiciary in its truly monstrous decision to threaten to jail the City Council of Yonkers, New York, because this council had refused to approve a low-income public housing project on the grounds that it would soon become an inner-city sewer of drugs and crime. His reasoning: that this resistance was a violation of egalitarian nondiscrimination doctrine, since Yonkers already had other public housing projects existing within its borders!”

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch16.html