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

Old April 4th, 2009 #21
John Cassidy
Homeward Yankee
 
John Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 279
Default There is something to what you’re saying, General.

There is something to what you’re saying, General. A great many liberals couldn’t emotionally manage an actual civil war. White lady liberals of the sort who comprised the million mom march or who reflexively choose feel-good social policies, would mentally breakdown if faced with the images of a civil war in the United States. Pictures of young white men who were killed and wounded would confuse them. Many such women wouldn’t be able to process their conflicting impulses - nurture versus ZOG training, motherly anxiety versus anti-racist indignation. If the resistance was determined and if it continued for only a few months, a great many liberal women would want peace at any cost.

One of the things about war is that it makes people reassess how invested they are in their belief systems. I know several gals who are Obama-philes and who vote Democratic because they think that the Dems are more in tune with women’s issues. But these same gals also understand that their boyfriends vote Republican. These gals think of the Dems as a more caring and nurturing party, just as they think that the GOP is a more masculine and indifferent party. If Washington liberals gave the order to kill and keep killing their boyfriends, or their boyfriend’s ilk a few states over, a lot of girlish Democrats wouldn’t be Democrats anymore.

Many women like to use political and social power to bully men, but they make such maneuvers from within a cocoon of assumptions about what is at stake and what the rules are. War changes the rules. War simplifies the rules. And there’s never been a shooting war in history where all the womenfolk of one race supported their kinfolk’s enemies.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #22
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassidy View Post
There is something to what you’re saying, General. A great many liberals couldn’t emotionally manage an actual civil war. White lady liberals of the sort who comprised the million mom march or who reflexively choose feel-good social policies, would mentally breakdown if faced with the images of a civil war in the United States. Pictures of young white men who were killed and wounded would confuse them. Many such women wouldn’t be able to process their conflicting impulses - nurture versus ZOG training, motherly anxiety versus anti-racist indignation. If the resistance was determined and if it continued for only a few months, a great many liberal women would want peace at any cost.

One of the things about war is that it makes people reassess how invested they are in their belief systems. I know several gals who are Obama-philes and who vote Democratic because they think that the Dems are more in tune with women’s issues. But these same gals also understand that their boyfriends vote Republican. These gals think of the Dems as a more caring and nurturing party, just as they think that the GOP is a more masculine and indifferent party. If Washington liberals gave the order to kill and keep killing their boyfriends, or their boyfriend’s ilk a few states over, a lot of girlish Democrats wouldn’t be Democrats anymore.

Many women like to use political and social power to bully men, but they make such maneuvers from within a cocoon of assumptions about what is at stake and what the rules are. War changes the rules. War simplifies the rules. And there’s never been a shooting war in history where all the womenfolk of one race supported their kinfolk’s enemies.
What haunts me about that train of thought, though, is that the South knew that they would be outguned and outmaned. They hung their fortunes on the notion that the damnyankees wouldn't have the stomach for the fight; that the Confederates would be fighting on their home turf for their home turf. No matter how many times I read the books though, it doesn't turn out well.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #23
John Cassidy
Homeward Yankee
 
John Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 279
Default Ha

Ha. True, the history of secession movements in North America after the late 1700s isn’t encouraging. Yet women didn’t have suffrage during the Civil War. They didn’t have TVs and video journalists to keep their doe-eyes filled with horrifying images. And there weren’t female politicos of any consequence.

Women were politically inconsequential during that era and the war was more an abstraction on a day to day basis for folks in the Northern Cities.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Well, I don't disagree with anything you've said.

I have no doubt something, eventually, could be forced on the kiken monstrosity that isn't our government - if we had a body of men willing to fight and kill and die. We don't have that today. Whites have not reached the level of sand niggers, in that regard.

It helps revolutionaries to have a sea to swim in. I don't think people are for us or against us. I don't think they're much of anything. They just do what superior power tells them. Does ZOG's power extend beyond the reach of its guns and tv? I don't think it does. I think very few people believe its lies enough to defend them, if it came to it.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General_Lee View Post
What haunts me about that train of thought, though, is that the South knew that they would be outguned and outmaned. They hung their fortunes on the notion that the damnyankees wouldn't have the stomach for the fight; that the Confederates would be fighting on their home turf for their home turf. No matter how many times I read the books though, it doesn't turn out well.
They weren't vicious enough, at least their leaders weren't. If you're going to get ground down in the longer run, then you better suprise attack or go all-out from the start - or else bide your time until you're in better position.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #26
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassidy View Post
Ha. True, the history of secession movements in North America after the late 1700s isn’t encouraging. Yet women didn’t have suffrage during the Civil War. They didn’t have TVs and video journalists to keep their doe-eyes filled with horrifying images. And there weren’t female politicos of any consequence.

Women were politically inconsequential during that era and the war was more an abstraction on a day to day basis for folks in the Northern Cities.
I hadn't taken the womens' sufferage into account, but that's a good point. But then, you've got it on both sides.

If you read the news coming out of Hawaii, they may be taking the lead on any future secessionist movement. They are getting damned sick and tired of being told by Zog (however nicely) that they cannot relegate non-natives to 3rd class citizenship based on their race. Especially niggers. Were it not for the ZOG tit that feeds the bulk of them, they would have already taken their leave, I believe.

Yes, welfare and poverty is rampant in Hawaii. I went there a couple of years ago. And like every beach city I've ever been to, Honolulu, about 2 miles inland from the beach, is a decrepit slum. You'd never know that from the jewtube, but take my word for it. On or near the beach, it's really nice: Palm trees and ocean breezes; tropical drinks with big chunks of pineapple; don't worry be happy. But just a little bit inland, it's a slum and the people there don't like you because you have white skin.

They were annexed by the white man and they resent it. They want to be their own nation again. Let them, I say.

Last edited by Marse Supial; April 4th, 2009 at 02:58 AM.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #27
F.W. Braun
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,463
Default

And TOQ wouldn't give Alex Linder an award. However, they might give it to you if you write it anonymously like George Orwell (real name: Eric Blair).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Not me, the topic puts the cart before the horse. The feds made it clear in the 1860s they're not going to allow any secession. So the real issue is obtaining the power. And if we had the power, we wouldnt need to secede or partition, just expel. What was that old line from Vietnam, you cant win at the negotiation tables what you havent earned in the field.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #28
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
They weren't vicious enough, at least their leaders weren't. If you're going to get ground down in the longer run, then you better suprise attack or go all-out from the start - or else bide your time until you're in better position.
Yes, Lee pulled punches. Once he witnessed the atrocities of reconstruction, he lamented his surrender. I forget the exact words, but the 'effect' was that his armies could have fought a guerilla war for many more years and perhaps have worn the enemy down to a negotiated solution to the war as opposed to an unconditional surrender. But he 'gave peace a chance' as they say. Although I can't say that I could have done any better or even as good, Lee's weakness was that his heart was too big.

General Sheridan, in the Indian wars, by way of contrast, had no compunction about killing every living thing. Even the youngest of Indian children. Babies. "Nits", he said, "become lice." And in the context of a war, he was right. Ruthlessness and dogged determination wins wars.

Last edited by Marse Supial; April 4th, 2009 at 02:57 AM.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #29
F.W. Braun
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,463
Default

Quote:
General Sheridan, in the Indian wars, by way of contrast, had no compunction about killing every living thing.
This is the Yankee way of doing business. They did the same thing in Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and Iraq.

A Yankee is first and foremost a moralizing, self-righteous, hypocritical genocidal mass murderer. The lowest form of pond scum.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #30
F.W. Braun
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,463
Default

wintermute, Anti-Yuppie, or guessedworker could kill this essay contest. The first two don't post anymore and the last one has his own vehicle.

No one, and I mean no one, knows the Jew better than wintermute.
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General_Lee View Post
Yes, Lee pulled punches. Once he witnessed the atrocities of reconstruction, he lamented his surrender. I forget the exact words, but the 'effect' was that his armies could have fought a guerilla war for many more years and perhaps have worn the enemy down to a negotiated solution to the war as opposed to an unconditional surrender. But he 'gave peace a chance' as they say. Although I can't say that I could have done any better or even as good, Lee's weakness was that his heart was too big.

General Sheridan, in the Indian wars, by way of contrast, had no compunction about killing every living thing. Even the youngest of Indian children. Babies. "Nits", he said, "become lice." And in the context of a war, he was right. Ruthlessness and dogged determination wins wars.
It always seemed to me the thing for the South to do was try to raze Washington right out of the box. I mean, ultimate vicious burning looting killing. Just to impress on the assholes that they needed to do some real hard thinking about how badly they wanted to win.

Sometimes it seems like Lee and Southerners, for all their words, don't really believe their own bullshit about the evils of the Yanks. Like they can't accept in their heart of hearts the Yanks can't be brought around. Well, this non-Southerner does! I know these liberals and jews first hand, and never were they better summed than in Judge Lawless' 'sanctimonious madmen.' They are crazed, hate-filled cultists, and anyone who pops their bubble with facts or even merely objections is like someone begging off Koolaid in Guyana.

Ang Lee got it perfectly in "Ride with the Devil" - they have to make everybody think like they do. And there is nothing they will not do to stop those who disagree with them. They will smear them, they will suppress them, they will murder them. The combination of WASP liberal and commie jew is the worst juggernaut the world has ever seen. It is a sick, fucked up cult they have made of the geo they control, and I will do whatever I can to defeat them.
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #32
John Cassidy
Homeward Yankee
 
John Cassidy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 279
Default Hey Alex,

I agree. I’ve taken a year off from working to write a book, a fiction book, that I hope will give their “juggernaut” media-machine a dose of its own medicine - a small dose of course, but a dose none-the-less. I’ve focused rather a lot on character development and on attributing pathologies and other unflattering traits to the kinds of characters who normally get flattering treatments in popular fiction. It’s been a real catharsis to hold them mute for a change and to build a story that gives us both emotional depth and a worthy voice.

I’m about 250 pages into the book, and I reckon I’ll be done by mid-summer or sooner. I realize that the story won’t change the world, but I’m okay with that. It just seems important to fight them.
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #33
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by F.W. Braun View Post
This is the Yankee way of doing business. They did the same thing in Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and Iraq.

A Yankee is first and foremost a moralizing, self-righteous, hypocritical genocidal mass murderer. The lowest form of pond scum.
That's true. But more significant, for purposes of opposing him, is recognizing that he is also highly intelligent, dedicated, competent and thorough. That's the part the good ol' boys don't like talking about.
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #34
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassidy View Post
I agree. I’ve taken a year off from working to write a book, a fiction book, that I hope will give their “juggernaut” media-machine a dose of its own medicine - a small dose of course, but a dose none-the-less. I’ve focused rather a lot on character development and on attributing pathologies and other unflattering traits to the kinds of characters who normally get flattering treatments in popular fiction. It’s been a real catharsis to hold them mute for a change and to build a story that gives us both emotional depth and a worthy voice.

I’m about 250 pages into the book, and I reckon I’ll be done by mid-summer or sooner. I realize that the story won’t change the world, but I’m okay with that. It just seems important to fight them.
Well, that's a worthwhile task. Good luck with it.
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #35
Axel Faaborg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post


His novels are good, quite readable. The NW plan is silly for a number of reasons. Inland Washington, for example, is loaded with Mexicans, and the coasts have plenty of Asians. The NW is no better than any other section politically and its less desirable in other ways.
Is there really any place that isn't loaded with Mexicans and/or niggers?

I think that, all other things being equal, the region with the most natural resources is the one to migrate to and build numbers in. It needs to have waterway or, ideally, coastal access. Chinese don't give a fuck who they're selling to as long as your pay them, for example. It seems to me that whatever region this is would likely be in the western US(unfortunately, the SW is out because of lack of resources.)

Inland Washington may have a lot of spics, but they can be driven out, and some courageous white men could have a lot of fun doing it too.
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #36
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
That's true. But more significant, for purposes of opposing him, is recognizing that he is also highly intelligent, dedicated, competent and thorough. That's the part the good ol' boys don't like talking about.
Yes. The southern planter class -- the people who yearned for the war, started it, financed it, encouraged it, but whose own sons would be away studying in Europe, envisioned those north of the Mason as weak-willed.

When I die and go to heaven, God is going to give me a dozen or so 18 wheelers full of fully automatic M-16s and about 5 billion rounds of ammunition. God will be wearing a confederate uniform. He will send me back to 1855, and he will say: "Second chance!! Go win that war this time!!!"
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #37
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General_Lee View Post

When I die and go to heaven, God is going to give me a dozen or so 18 wheelers full of fully automatic M-16s and about 5 billion rounds of ammunition. God will be wearing a confederate uniform. He will send me back to 1855, and he will say: "Second chance!! Go win that war this time!!!"
I made a comment to a friend one time along the lines of: "The way this country turned out I wish the South had won the war". He responded that if that had happened the South would have expanded slavery into the Northern territories and free states and with that those states would have also become slave states. The importation of slaves would have continued unabated and even increased thereby allowing millions more negros into this country.

He ended the comment with a question: "Still wish the South had won the war"?
 
Old April 5th, 2009 #38
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
I made a comment to a friend one time along the lines of: "The way this country turned out I wish the South had won the war". He responded that if that had happened the South would have expanded slavery into the Northern territories and free states and with that those states would have also become slave states. The importation of slaves would have continued unabated and even increased thereby allowing millions more negros into this country.

He ended the comment with a question: "Still wish the South had won the war"?
That question deserves a whole thread to itself. In the meantime, as yourself this:

Did we ditch slavery because we found Jesus?

Did we ditch slavery because the Yankees forced us into it?

Did we ditch slavery becuase it was not profitable anymore?

Or a combination of the above?
 
Old April 6th, 2009 #39
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General_Lee View Post
That question deserves a whole thread to itself. In the meantime, as yourself this:

Did we ditch slavery because we found Jesus?

Did we ditch slavery because the Yankees forced us into it?

Did we ditch slavery becuase it was not profitable anymore?

Or a combination of the above?
Heh, and it's been done here at VNN. I recall Rounder and Ron Doggett making similar points. Basically they were saying pretty much what you are, that is if the South had won the war Southerners would have come to the proper conclusion regarding the slavery issue. I remember thinking it was an overly optimistic premise and that leaving what to do about nog slaves up to rich White Southern plantation owners (the same guys who imported slaves because they were to greedy, cheap and power hungry to give a White working man a fair wage) was pie in the sky thinking.
 
Old April 6th, 2009 #40
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Slavery existed in the north until it wasn't profitable. I'm not sure how profitable it was in the South after Whitney invented the cotton gin. There were never more than a few hundred thousand or a couple millions slaves imported to the US, so, since there are 35m nigs today, they multiplied just fine on their own.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 AM.
Page generated in 0.18076 seconds.