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

Old December 18th, 2009 #121
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,246
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I confess a soft spot for him. I just loved the way his mind shot directly to the relevant points. Zero regard for PC or diplomacy, just straight and blunt to jew-blame. Frookin' awesome, 'twas.



Read a bio of Clinton. People in politics are pretty shameless, most of them. The perfect democratic politician can sit down at a picnic table with two people on opposite sides of an issue, and walk away with both of them thinking he's on their side. Clinton was that good. Taking a position in democratic politics HURTS people. That's why virtually all elected politicians are very skillful deceivers. Very, very few democratic politicians dare lecture people. Bobby Kennedy did, but very few others. 99.9% are attached to audience ass like natural-born remoras.



Alone they don't get us very far, though. Liars and murderers always seem to occupy the top positions.



Wanting to live in a White nation is a preference, not a truth.



Did I advocate dishonesty or did I observe that those in power are almost always liars, thieves and murderers? You drew the conclusion, I never stated it.



You're a smart guy, Hadding, but I wouldn't have you as part of my inner circle at any cost. You would flip under pressure, because you basically see everybody in the world as morally corrupt, and yourself as pure. Thus, you think everybody else basically deserves the bad that happens to them, and with that mentality, you would turn very quickly under pressure. People don't come in good, and you're still in the childish state where that surprises and disappoints you. Your moralism even overcomes your legalism in this post. You overlook that there was absolutely nothing illegal about the magazine cover of the article itself. To your normal, lawyerball-playing self, that would be the signal point. But because your moral side wants to see Bill White punished, you turn into a puritan.
You are really going to extremes to defend Bill White, I guess because you've embarrassed yourself by associating with him. It's not really necessary to believe that perfectly good people exist to observe that Bill White is seriously flawed to the point of being a liability.

You talk about unfitness to be a member of your inner circle. Not that I would even want the job, but let me just say that I don't have a history of sensational accusations against former colleagues. Guess who does?

You did advocate dishonesty, implicitly, because that is the main focus of my criticism of White, and your response has been to try to redeem that trait as somehow beneficial.

You have even sunk to the level of presenting Bill Clinton as a model of success. Those people on the left can get away with a lot of shenanigans that we can't, because they are not trying to uphold or preserve anything. You can be caught lying all the time and still be popular with niggers, but not so easily with White people.

Last edited by Hadding; December 18th, 2009 at 11:23 AM.
 
Old December 18th, 2009 #122
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,472
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
You did advocate dishonesty, implicitly, because that is the main focus of my criticism of White, and your response has been to try to redeem that trait as somehow beneficial.
I merely pointed out that successful democratic politicians are almost all skillful and well practiced liars.

I acknowledge White lies. My defense of him is that I don't see that he committed any crimes.

Quote:
You have even sunk to the level of presenting Bill Clinton as a model of success.
He's an objective success regardless of what I present. I merely pointed out that he was, by all accounts, a consummate liar, and that this says something about democratic politics. To your dim mind, that means I'm advocating lying. You're a pretty typical library munchkin. Passive aggressive as a venus flytrap, and always willing to construe your own motives about 100x more leniently than the one you're arguing with.

But most remarkable of all, is that you don't even take issue with my psych profile of yourself. Do you deny it's accurate?

It's quite clear, to me at least, from your posts on this thread, that you want to see Bill White convicted, and it has nothing to do with whether he committed a crime.
 
Old December 18th, 2009 #123
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,246
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It's quite clear, to me at least, from your posts on this thread, that you want to see Bill White convicted, and it has nothing to do with whether he committed a crime.
Your characterization is not consistent with what I have been saying.
From Dan Casey's Blog:

The crucial point about Bill White's magazine with the cover featuring Barack Obama in the crosshairs is that the words in the magazine do not advocate what the cover depicts. The cover does not say, "Kill this nigger!" It asks the question, "Kill this nigger?"

The conventional wisdom among White Nationalists even before Bill White published that magazine was that an Obama assassination would be a disaster for our cause, just as the Kennedy assassination was a disaster that facilitated passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (even though the perpetrator was not a racist as originally assumed).

The text of the magazine answers the question posed on the cover by saying, No, do not kill this nigger.

There is something disingenuous about this, and that is what has gotten Bill White in trouble. Bill White is a master at forcing people to pay attention to him through manipulation. That is what the psychiatrist Corcoran implied when he said that White had a personality disorder featuring "histrionic" and "narcissistic" elements. Bill White knew perfectly well that many people unfamiliar with the discussions about this issue in the White Nationalist movement would fly off the handle reacting to the image and not consider the text.

To all you anti-racist liberals: as far as the magazine cover is concerned, Bill White was just yanking your chain.

Comment by Hadding Scott
_____________________


"The conventional wisdom among White Nationalists even before Bill White published that magazine was that an Obama assassination would be a disaster for our cause"

How screamingly fortunate for the majority of this country that elected him.

How depressing to think that the fate of our President depends on the aggregate "conventional wisdom" of a group like this one.

I think, Mr. Scott, you overestimate White's powers and misinterpret Corcoran's assessment. Maybe he just meant White is a nutcase.

Comment by Kristen
______________________


No, I understand exactly what Corcoran meant by histrionic, narcissistic, manipulative, and attention-seeking. I've been aware of Bill White for at least ten years, and all Corcoran did was to confirm what those of us who have been putting up with him already knew.

Dan Casey's aetiology of this situation is also consistent with what I have been trying to tell some of my associates on VNN Forum. Some want to believe that Bill White is being persecuted for his political views, but that is not the core of the matter. Anybody who presses his legal rights to the very limit runs the risk of being dragged into court, and it is not realistic to think that being technically within your rights is going to protect you from some kind of official reaction if you scare a lot of people. Governments do not always play strictly by the rules.

What concerns me at this point are the "civil rights suits" that White is going to face after the current trial ends, probably without a conviction. "Civil rights law" is not a longstanding part of our legal tradition, but an innovation introduced during Reconstruction, found unconstitutional in 1883, then reintroduced in 1964. After this trial ends, the real abomination begins.

Comment by Hadding Scott — December 17, 2009
 
Old December 19th, 2009 #124
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
What do you think is the real reason, Mike?
Not sure Alex, but I was thinking more about why pro-Jew Brimelow would promote anti-Jew MacDonald, and went back to MacDonald here:

Quote:
I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US.
Compare Jew Steve Sailer:

Quote:
Our country would be better off with a "Cuban Compromise"—giving Jewish interests roughly the same privileges as Cubans currently enjoy, but no more:

1.The U.S. would agree to follow Israel's lead on the Palestinian problem (but not, of course, to attack Israel's various enemies for it).

2.Jews fleeing genuine persecution would be guaranteed refugee status in the U.S.

3.In return, Jewish activists would be open to analysis and criticism by non-Jews.
And Jew Lawrence Auster:

Meso-Conservatives?

Quote:
A correspondent writes:
"You are what I call a meso-conservative, a paleo on domestic policy (esp. immigration) and a neo on foreign policy. How do like the compromise?"

Here is my reply:
A Meso-Con! That's interesting, as I do see myself as between the neocons and the paleocons, rejecting the ideological universalism of the former and the ideological particularism of the latter.

However, I don't completely agree with your description of me. I have consistently supported the neocon position on war with Iraq. I have also consistently criticized the neocons' overall "democratist" agenda in foreign policy, particularly their ridiculously simple-minded assumption that, because everyone wants to avoid being oppressed and wants good things for their children, therefore everyone in the world is the same, and ready for American-style democracy. The assumption of essential sameness among human beings, based on what is really a very partial and superficial sameness, is what drives both the neocons's open-borders policy and their "democratize the world" policy.

This does not mean I am necessarily against a broader campaign to change the Muslim countries. That part of the world currently represents a very dire threat to us and the whole world. Closing them out of the U.S. through immigration restrictions (and deportations) is essential in my view, but that wouldn't end the threat. Therefore I do not dismiss arguments such as Michael Ledeen's (even though I oppose his underlying ideology of "creative destruction" and "democratic revolution") that the only way to end the terrorist jihadist menace is to topple the regimes that support it. This doesn't have to mean war in each case, but effective political action to isolate and delegitimize those regimes while giving support to opposition groups. This is not because I want us to be involved there,--I regret and hate the whole business--but because there is an objective threat in the real world that we cannot ignore.
Comment:

Quote:
Reappropriate being "clash" positive and support for an active military role as a legitimate "conservative" position even as we demand "immigration reform" (a total moratorium)and denounce "world government" "equality of outcome" "denial of exitence of race", oppose abortion, judicial tyranny, defend Christianity, oppose homosexuality, support the second amendment etc.
Auster replies:

Quote:
Excellent statement by Fire. I agree with everything he has said. In his comments we can see the outlines of a renewed, patriotic right that will stand strongly both for the defense of our national security and national interests around the world (we can't help having such interests, we are too big not to have them) and for the defense of our nation at home.
And Jared:

Quote:
For example, Taylor said, without Jewish support it will be nearly impossible to restrict immigration.
So they all strike a grand bargain, and as I gathered from Tinkerbell, the polite anti-Semites have their bridge back into reinvigorated respectable conservatism? Of course the politics will never work, but Stanford MBA Brimelow may get some nervous Jew money out of it. Talk about elites: he's the smartest of this bunch.

Last edited by Mike Parker; December 19th, 2009 at 07:12 AM.
 
Old December 20th, 2009 #125
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 43,472
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Good stuff, Mike. I appreciate your digging this stuff and posting it.

I see some naivete here on the part of KM and the rest.

The jews don't need WHINO/paleocon support to do anything. When they judge it in their interest to shut the borders, they do it with trumpets, and, through Fox, present themselves to the dummies as the great heroes finally go the border controls in place.
 
Old December 22nd, 2009 #126
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Igor Alexander
Default

Going off-topic a bit: Alex, if you suspect you have a vitamin D deficiency, try taking cod liver or halibut liver oil every day (just make sure it's not the stuff that's had the vitamins removed).
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old December 22nd, 2009 #127
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Going off-topic a bit: Alex, if you suspect you have a vitamin D deficiency, try taking cod liver or halibut liver oil every day (just make sure it's not the stuff that's had the vitamins removed).
I'm taking 5,000 IU a day of vitamin D3 along with all of the other supplements. Also purchased a large container of crushed organic flax seeds that I sprinkle about 1 ounce on a pbj sandwich daily. Suppose to be helpful in reducing cholesterol levels.

Last edited by OTPTT; December 22nd, 2009 at 03:26 PM.
 
Old December 22nd, 2009 #128
odin
Nuthin' But Luv, Baby
 
odin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,928
odin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
I'm taking 5,000 IU a day of vitamin D3
Have you had your levels checked? That might be too much.
 
Old December 22nd, 2009 #129
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odin View Post
Have you had your levels checked? That might be too much.
No but for the last several years I rarely get outside as much as I would like. Actually, I'm inside way to much and am not getting the necessary sunlight needed to synthesize vitamin d within my body.

Jeff Rense takes 6,000 IU daily. Maybe I'll back it down to 4,000 IU and have it check some time down the road. With its association as a known anti-cancer fighter I'm willing to take the chance of taking those doses.

From what I've read and heard it takes months for the body to get the vitamin d levels back to proper levels.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.
Page generated in 0.10413 seconds.