|
More Nyquist.
---------------------------------------
>From: JRNyquist@aol.com
I am familiar with anti-Jewish thought and its theories -- conspiratorial and
sociological. I am unclear as to which version of anti-Jewish opinion you
ascribe. However, I must disagree with a few things you've written. You say
that the USSR was a "dictatorship of Jewry."
Actually, I didn't say that -- although I think it is accurate. That was
the perception of Eastern Europe and Nazi Germany and Winston Churchill.
Perhaps these three antagonists, divided on so many other issues, were all
wrong about this one, and Mr. Nyquist, trained in poly sci at one of our
elite universities, is right. I always thought humility in the face of
evidence was one of the hallmarks of the conservative, and its absence
characteristic of the left... Perhaps I was mistaken, or perhaps my view
wasn't nuanced enough: ie, humility before evidence except where issues
that Jews or Jew-intimidated superiors declare off-limits are concerned.
>You actually describe Lenin as
a Jew because of some odd rule which has nothing to do with Lenin's actual
condition. Lenin was never raised in Judaism. He did not think like a Jew.
Fair enough with regard to Lenin. I wouldnt call him a Jew myself. Even
though he certainly thought like a Jew, surrounded himself with Jews, took
money from Jews, spared Jewish churches from depredations carried out
against Christians', and had a geneology that would have paved the way for
first-class Israeli citizenship under our noble ally's Law of Return.
Again, I wouldnt call him a Jew, but if Jews themselves would, I can't argue
too hard against others doing it too...
>And the same should be said of Karl Marx. He was raised as a Christian. In
what sense was he Jewish?
Marx is a totally different story. He came from a long line of rabbis, and
his father only "converted" for reasons of social mobility. Haven't you
ever heard of British in public, yiddish in private? The real question is,
In what sense was Marx not a Jew? He was a very intelligent, irresponsible,
physically dirty and repugnant man pushing an incredibly destructive
pseudo-scientific, ersatz-religious view of reality. Sounds like a Jew to
me. You seem to think that Judaism is some sort of skin-thick veneer that
can be put on or cast off like an old sweater. It's much deeper than that,
or the race wouldnt have survived six thousand years. Please take some time
to read about Jews. Here's a book that will open your eyes to an entirely
new way of looking at things: The Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray
Cuddihy. The real ordeal is trying to find a copy of it, but you can
probably get one at natall.com.
A large number of original Bolsheviks were of
Jewish background. So what? They were men without religion, who no longer
believed in anything but revolution. Their Jewishness was something they
themselves had left behind, just as the Christianity of Josef Stalin was left
behind. Were they Jews? Not any more than Stalin or Hitler were Christians.
They no longer practiced the religion of Judaism. They were atheists. They
were deracinated, disconnected, adrift on the sea of ideology. Okay, perhaps
you think this was a front. But where is the proof? When I look at this
proof, it's a shabby edifice of hate. Perhaps you believe in a Jewish
master-conspiracy. I've looked into that. Probably you will not like hearing this,
but *The Protocols of the Elders of Zion* are a forgery, I've
seen the book from which they were cribbed.
You make an odd response: ignoring my questions and bringing up two things
I never mentioned: conspiracies and the Protocols. You write a column
telling readers to respect objective truth. I lay out portions of that
objective truth as it pertains to the subjects you deal with -- portions
which you ignore -- and you respond by trying to fit me into some
convenient, conventional stereotype of the anti-Semite.
I didnt mention conspiracies because they are beside the point: people who
basically think and act alike are going to appear to be conspiring whether
they actually plot things out together or not. Either way the effect is the
same, and it matters little to those who oppose them. Do bigshot Jew queer
producers in Hollywood actually sit down and conspire to produce movie after
movie in which the leads are brave, noble, heroic black FBI men assisted by
doe-eyed blonds in pursuit of evil/corrupt/ugly gentile
heterosexuals/businessmen/preachers/Southerners/Germans/racists? Sure,
sometimes they do. But the main point is, they don't need to. They all
think one way, and so their products naturally appear coordinated.
Unsophisticated people dimly sense this and cry, Conspiracy! They have the
spirit right, if they fail to make an intellectual's distinctions. The
truly pitiful and inexcusable are the Semitically Correct conservatives who
decide to pretend (to keep their jobs?) that Jews are no different from
anybody else. I am sure you are well trained in politics, but you ought to
fortify your education with a closer look at the nature of Jews and Judaism.
Judaism is not at all what you think it is. Hint: The real meaning, to a
Jew, of the word anti-Semite is non-Jew. Do you physically recoil before
speaking the word "Jew" out loud? Most people do. Do you ever wonder why
that is?; ever think about the political implications of that fear?
Again, when you say that all the revolutionaries had dumped their
Jewishness, you aren't merely debating me -- you are denying the perceptions
and experience of literally millions of Central and Eastern Europeans. I
think their perception of the real enemy is a good deal sharper than yours.
This was a life and death issue to them -- a vital interest, so to speak.
They had a very real interest in not misperceiving their true enemy. Again,
I ask you to remember Mencken's dictum that a man's opinion is worth nothing
if he isn't free to hold the opposite. This is why college professors and
most conservative writers come up with such laughable stuff when it pertains
to the people who dominate the media and thereby constitute the genuine
political power in this country. Please think about this a bit. I am by no
means trying to insult or belittle you. I just want you to realize there
are certain things you are simply not going to be allowed to say. You can
take whatever position you want on tax rates, nobody gives a damn. You
start crossing the Jewish line in politics, and it could well be your
livelihood. That just leaves the truth telling and the glory and the honor
to the rest of us -- the openly pro-white racialists. You dont really want
us to have it all, do you?
>
> You are evidently an ideological anti-Semite. I am not. Do not imagine
>it is because I haven't studied this question. I have studied it, and I've
>looked at the evidence. My training is in sociology and political science.
>And I can readily see the errors in the Jewish conspiracy propaganda. It is
>not scholarly. It is not honest, and it is not looking at all the facts.
>
> Hitler made a tragic mistake. Blaming the Jews misses the mark. We are
>not being threatened by the state of Israel or the Elders of Zion.
The men on the Liberty back in '67 were more than threatened -- they were
murdered.
The Russians and Chinese are the one's aiming all the missiles at us.
Maybe you haven't heard: the Israelis, our noble ally, sell these people
our secrets and technology.
>Anti-Semitism is a diversion, a dead-end, and the literature of anti-Semitism
is filled with forgeries, lies, misstatements of fact, etc.
Then it's no worse than the NY Times, the Washington Post and the rest of
the Jewish press. Except the racist press doesnt win Pulitzers for covering
up the starvation of millions of white Christian Ukrainians by Jew-led
Bolsheviks like Walter Duranty and the NY Times did.
>It is simply not
credible. This theory is the creature of Jesuit preists and Black Hundreds
fanatics. Jewish involvement in revolutionary activity is due to
sociological factors, not conspiratorial factors. Have you read David
Horrowitz's book? Have you read any of the testimony from the Jewish
Communists who have defected? How could there be a Jewish conspiracy when we
haven't one credible source that has defected with information about how this
conspiracy is run? We have many Jewish sources who have defected, and tell
us a more nuanced, more sociologically coherent story.
Yes, I have read Horowitz and the rest of them. The point is not that
there's a conspiracy, it's that Jews, taken as a sort of ethnic
group-slash-milieu, produce an extremely high proportion of the most
destructive ideas and actors the civilized white world has to defeat to stay
alive.
It's really odd to me that you keep harping on conspiracies when I never
used the word. You give the impression of someone struggling to place
another in some sort of ill-fitting mental construct as a quick way to
dispose of him. Although everything I have ever written you has been
straightforward, you seem to think I'm really "conspiring" to mean something
else. Your thoughts seem to run very stereotypically, and I have no problem
with that except that I dont fit the stereotype you're belaboring. My sole
objective is the one you praise -- to discover and communicate objective
truth. Perhaps it is a sign of how deeply embedded is your Semitically
Correct fear of taking a direct look at the Jews that you can't recognize
the direct, honorable, zesty discourse of a free man for what it is.
JH
> (You will disagree, of course, as to what is "credible.")JRN
More with Nyquist.
no kidding. i said that in the white west, communism was thought up,
fomented and institutionalized by jews. yes there were non-jew communists.
yes jews played lesser roles in non-white portions of the globe. but my
point was that it is fair to tie jews to communism, because without jewish
participation, communist revolutions would never have occurred in any white
western country. im really surprised that quotation from churchill didnt
make an impression on you. you ought to read disraeli's novels if you want
to see a rare case of a jew admitting the truth -- that it is race that
moves politics and the world. and that rothschild and rabble jews are as one
in seeking jewish dominance.
today, the groundbreaking evil au courant jewish intellectual has moved on
beyond Classic Communism to fertiler fields such as multiculturalism,
feminism, queer theory, environmentalism. all these are marxist-root
philosophies; political/academic fads whose leading exponents are jews.
same old fight -- government control of everything -- just new wrappings and
new means. there they served up a violent decapitation of a monarchy, here
they buy up papers and tv stations and drown us in democratic propaganda.
jews always and only ask: is it good for the jews?; they always attack
christians and whites as such; and they always do all they can to fragment
and fracture white society and break down its cohesion (through
multicultural agitprop, open borders -- an entirely jew-led cause); and they
always demonize as "haters" those whites who recognize and defend white
interests as such. These are the reasons they have been kicked out of
practically every country they have ever settled in, and why one day they
will be kicked out of America too.
>>One more note:
>>
As a graduate student in a leading political science program, all the
communists I encountered were non-Jewish except one -- and he had broken from
the group in disgust. The Communists I have known include American Indians,
Latin Americans, blacks, white feminists, and white males of Christian
background. The Communist movement is a lot larger than its Bolshevik Jewish
antecedents. The idea of a Jewish-controled movement is an intellectual
error -- an assumption of conspiratorial control and direction that cannot be proved
JRN
------------------------------------------------
>From: JRNyquist@aol.com
> One last comment about my alleged "Semitic Correctness," I cannot resist
restating the most relevant point. The leaders of current-day Communist
China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Russia are not Jewish.
True.
Perhaps you will find a few Jews in the Russian government.
Well, its hard to understand who's really in control in Russia. My
understanding is the mob has inordinate power, and I know that Jews are
hugely influential in this group. I have heard that something like six of
the top seven billioinaire capitalists/mobsters who I guess got rich selling
off stuff when communism folded are themselves Jews, although the media
never identifies them that way.
>But the Jews (as a dominant force) in the Kremlin were largely exterminated and
driven out by Stalin. This is historical fact, but if you wish to ignore facts in the
name of racial hatred -- who is stopping you?
There was certainly a diminution of their influence, you're right about
that. It's not clear to me exactly what happened; I'm not sure the true
picture of this period has ever been written up by anyone. But most of the
dirty work was done by then. I think the main point still stands, which is
that the Soviet Union and its terror never would have come into existence
without Jews -- Jewish radical thinkers, Jewish-American financiers, Jewish
terrorists and Jewish political police. Isn't the big point really that
Jews were, as you say, a dominant force for the first twenty years of the
revolution -- and yet they are never singled out and criticized as such?
Just as they are never criticized as Jews in America, though they do most of
the dirty work. I'm an atheist, but I cant help noticing how the Christians
are always attacked by media Jews, yet they never return the favor,
preferring to vent their spleen on "atheists" like me, as though I were
their real enemy. Or "secular humanists," whatever they are. Jews is
short, apt and accurate. There is real power in that word. I spoke out
against David Halberstam on Monday. He had just given a boring lecture on
the nobility of the young blacks and Jews who created the civil rights
movement. I said: Thomas Jefferson said: The two races, equally free,
cannot live under the same government. Why should these nice white
middle-western kids take the word of a leftist Jew like you over the word of
one of the founding fathers? He didnt like that at all. He gave a weak
answer that if Jefferson were alive today and saw men like Colin Powell,
he'd change his mind. He absolutely hated being identified as a Jew. I was
struck by the oddness of the situation: Here's an East Coast Jew taking
probably 5-10K of these white kids' student activity fee money to tell them
blood libels about their forefathers. About how they were evil haters
because they built a legal and cultural system that put a firewall between
whites and blacks to avoid the blooshed, rape and general breakdown they
knew would ensue if the races ever mingled freely. Thirty years of
evidence plus the experiences of Rhodesia and South Africa -- rape and
murder capital of the world -- mean nothing to Jews like Halberstam. Well,
I stood up and told him that I'd lived in Washington DC, and integration is
a failure, and diversity is not our greatest strength, that's merely a
Jewish Big Lie, and that rural Missouri is great in part because it lacks
diversity, and god forbid we ever get large numbers of blacks and mexicans
up here.
well, it was a hubbub, as you might imagine. they were this close to
throwing me out, even though i really didnt interrupt him or speechify or
threaten anybody.... anyway, you are going to see more of this activity as
time goes by -- from me and from others. also, getting back to my point,
the big reason these jews are able to get away with their cultural
destruction is that their media power has beaten people over the head until
they are afraid to identify the jews as the cause. everybody can see it,
but no one will say it. im advising you that this is guaranteeing a
reaction, of which im part. i used to work for conservative publications
out east. i was naive enough when i went out there to think that you could
criticize blacks and jews and other groups as such -- but you cant. the
whole public right has given in on the diversity issue, guaranteeing its
impotence. thousands of mexicans come into our country illegally each day,
and no one is doing anything about it. that fact guarantees either that we
will have a racial war at some point, or we will become a third world
country. open pro-white political organizations are barely on the horizon
now, but they are starting to gain members, and these people are hopping
mad, serious, and not as dumb and evil as the stupid nazi shows on A&E and
History channel make out. the halberstams cant stop us. all they can do is
yob on about how "rude" we are -- they cant counter us factually, and they
physically are but a tiny minority. their media power, their organization
and their high intelligence are what keep them in power, but their grip is
not as sure as it seems. im no joe macho, but its really disgusting how
effeminate the average male in this country has become. people have been so
propagandized in illogic that they really think "you are rude" or "you are
evil" or "you are mentally ill (rocker)" refutes your argument. but that is
the way women instinctively respond. and pulitzer prize-winning jewish
"historians."
>If you want to talk about the negative Jewish effect on American culture, you can make a
case. I should note that the Beatles were English, and Elvis Presley was white.
I am glad to see you believe this. As for Presley, Beatles, etc., sure, the
face of music, TV and pop culture and TV politics is white -- but the
producers and executive string-pullers are Jewish. The people who enforce
the political boundaries of pop are almost entirely Jewish. MTV, which I
believe is the most evil force in the world, was set up by a Jew -- Murray
Rothstein (Sumner Redstone). Jews in the movies forego profits for
agitprop, as Michael Medved has pointed out. They do this in music too.
There is a fairly large underground group of white kids whose parents werent
rich enough to move away from the inner city niggers. Either their kids
grow to be wiggers, or, if they are strong, to hate blacks. These people
loved that old Guns N Roses song "One in a Million," which had the lyric
Police and niggers (that's right!)
Get out of my way...
Don't wanna buy none of your gold chains today.
That song I think was never released as a single and never played as a
video. If it had, it would have made somebody a lot of money.
Watch the new MTV show "Undressed" and you will see the perfect example of
Jewish cultural destruction at work. The show is about extremely good
looking teens and their sex lives. All are beautiful, all are promiscuous.
In one show, a white girl asks a black guy to teach her how to give a
blowjob so she can please her boyfriend. In another show, two guys are
kissing. What can the effect of a show like this -- the distilled essence
of MTV -- be on a normal white fifteen year old girl but to sway her into
thinking miscegenation, promiscuity and homosexuality are good things? And
that fact is, they are NOT good things. I will give you a little
journalistic heads up here: One day in the not to distant future, people
like Redstone who put out this garbage -- knowingly and intentionally -- are
going to pay for what they have done. I truly think you would be surprised
at how many of us there are out here who understand what's going on and are
intent on changing it. There is a real pro-white movement starting to pick
up adherents as people tire of the feckless remonstrators the
"conservatives" have become. You can intuit what the Jew-led libs are after
by simply evoking the TV-Moral we all know by heart: germans are evil and
nazis, southerners are evil and racists, catholics are evil and boy-rapers,
businessmen are evil and greedy, blacks are noble and heroic, jews are
bringers of light, more sinned against than sinning, white women are
naturally attracted to minorities, homosexuality is good. i could go on for
fifteen minutes, but we all consciously or subconsciously know the lessons
tv teaches. tv is a tool to train young whites that they should welcome the
racial devolution of their country and in fact not worry about politics at
all but stick to sex and rock and roll and conspicuous consumption. there
is no such thing as white interests, and anybody who says there is, is a
racist nazi klansman hater. honor, self-restraint, nobility -- all lies.
the real world is getting as much sex and consumer goods as you can grab.
>So there's plenty of
blame for bad cultural influences from all sides, racially speaking. It is a
very tricky thing to claim that one group, over all the others, is
responsible for our current cultural mess.
It's not all that hard. If you consider nominal versus effective power, you
will see that the Jew producing Dan Rather is in many ways more powerful
than Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich. Do you really think that Gingrich when
he was head of the Congress felt more powerful than the media? As for our
cultural mess, well, Hollywood was invented by the Jews, as Neal Gabler put
it in his book a few years ago. Michael Medved also points out that Jews
are largely responsible for the sewage it spews. Its just none of us get to
say it without getting fired. Thats how the world works -- today. Jews
create the sewage, spray it over everybody, and hell, when you think of
Medved, theyre even the only ones who get to criticize it!
>Besides this, what is the
practical value in blaming Jews for the world's problems?
I'm going to choose to believe you didnt formulate this as carefully as you
might have. I blame the Jews only for the problems they have caused.
Knowing the truth is always necessary to effect genuine reform. As for
practicality, well, its not practical at all when they have the power to get
you fired or, see the case of David Irving, they gang up behind the scenes
to destroy your reputation and get publishers to shun you. I dont find
politics and writing worth doing as a hobby; if I'm going to spend time
writing something, I'm going to go for the truth. And the above comments
are where my research has led me. Practicality dictates one stick to
writing about economics, "Russian" gangsters, and the greatness of
immigration, diversity and inclusiveness. Speaking the truth about these
things will not advance your career, no doubt about that. At least not in
the short term.
>You call yourself
a "pro-white racialist." What does this signify?
It means I want to live in an America that is all white, like America 90%
was up until the Jews succeeded in passing the 1965 immigration act that is
turning us into the third world. It means I am a normal white American who
wants to live among others like me. I have experienced the Jewish media and
the reality of big-city diversity, and they both suck. So I have three
options: I can hold my opinions to myself and let the country disintegrate;
I can go out and work for fakes like the Republican party and the
"conservative" magazines and politicians; or I can work with William Pierce
(Turner Diaries) and the National Alliance and other people who openly,
honorably and effectively pursue the defense of white Western civilization.
I choose the the third option.
>The fact is, your ideology
-- right or wrong -- does not address the immediate problem before us. We
are threatened with destruction from Russia and China, not from Israel and
the Jews.
This is a real problem, and I read people like you to learn about it, and
find out what we must do to counter it. I just happen to feel cultural
destruction from within via Jewish media agitprop is a greater and more
immediate problem than foreign missiles, so I tend to focus on speaking out
and writing against it, and working with groups that see things the same
way. You can disagree, but I think "Undressed" is immensely more powerful
and dangerous than a Chinese missile. Take it easy,
Jack Halliday
>JRN
Unknown writer.
Hite: Why doesn't your report mention the race of the perp and the race of
the victim and compare this crime to the dragging of James Byrd? I'd bet my
bottom dollar you aren't aware that one of the white men (King) who murdered
Byrd was gang-raped by blacks in prison.
You wonder why people hate the media -- it's your cowardice and your lies.
You know the facts and you deliberately omit them when blacks commit 'hate'
crimes, and you linger lovingly on them if they involve white-on-black
crime. Don't give me any garbage about how race wasnt relevant here -- guys
like you and your paper printed Byrd articles at the behest of the lib Jews
who no doubt run your paper until you were blue in the face. Hell, you
still are... Act like a white man for once and uphold a single standard:
stick this story on page one with a big pic of the guilty negro and huge
type screaming hate crime. Until you and other white reporters do that
you're nothing but liberal, Jew-intimidated anti-white cowards.
Jack Halliday
To Jeff Jacoby.
It's good to see the group-groomers using their freedom of speech, Mr.
Jacoby.
Which camp(s) was Wiesel in? Are you sure?
Jack Halliday
Unknown.
You're a naive man. Did you know the "Holocau$t" promoters used to claim
that four million were gassed at Auschwitz? Now the number has dropped to
one-point-something. Largely due to the work of 'Holocaust (c)
revisionists.' Your article also implies that Zyclon B wasn't used for lice
extermination. Have you ever bothered to read up on the "Holocaust" (Inc.)?
Or are you just repeating things you assume to be true?
Let's take whichever Jew is currently producing segments for Mike Wallace or
Dan Rather. What are the chances he's going to play it straight instead of
pushing his leftist agenda? I think you'll agree they are extremely slim.
And when you throw in the tens of billions Israel has extorted from Germany
and the U.S. and, more recently banks and insurance companies throughout the
West, I think the conclusion is clear: proven liars + billion-dollar
incentives = guaranteed deception. Remember, we subidize every Jew family
in Israel to the tune of $5,000 a year. That's five-thousand dollars a
year. A YEAR. And if we call these shekelistas parasites, we are
anti-Semites.
You probably think you are courageous for standing up for freedom of speech.
But if you were really standing up for speech instead of denouncing some
old man in a foreign country, you'd research and write an article about the
Jews who are attempting to impose the same Stalinist straitjackets here
they've already wrapped around Europe and Canada.
Alex Linder
To the campus paper regarding the National Alliance flier put out and denounced in
Texas.
You say the flier put out incorrect statistics. Why don't you put out the
real statistics about blacks and AIDS; about other minorities and AIDS? Are
they a little too inconvenient for you? Are you afraid your readers would
draw the obvious conclusion that the National Alliance is right -- that
having sex with a black man is a very risky proposition, no matter how cool
the Jews behind MTV make it seem?
Sincerely,
Alex Linder
To a conservative writer who styles herself "reasonable woman."
reasonable woman, do you see that if you fought for white rights, youd
probably end up with the libertarianism you favor -- at the least? at the
most you might even get a nigger-free, judenrein Civilization. instead you
and other white libts fight as individuals for individual rights against
niggers and jews fighting for anti-white discrimination and group privileges
for discoloreds. who do you think is going to win that one? who always
does?
why should niggers give a damn about individual rights when the fed tyrants
are on their side? when jesse jackson has only to squeeze the Texacan
Whitemouse in his pocket and it coughs up 176.1 million. which would you
rather have? which would you rather have if you had an 85-average iq? how
is an illiterate 70-iq black woman going to understand the logic of
individual rights for everybody against the stolen white-earners' money
promised to her in jesse's canting doggerel?
do you really think a dumb nigger ought to have the same rights as you do?
have you read what's going on in zimbabwe and south africa these days? how
has your libt conceit about treating niggers as individuals worked out --
democratically -- in those countries?
how reasonable are you, woman?
a reasonable pro-white man,
alex linder
Unknown.
Good man. I am impressed. You might do an article in the future pointing
out that there are "historical opinion crimes" in practically every country
in Western Europe, put in their at the request of the jews. And they'd be
here too, if the Jews had their way. I know you mention this, but youve got
to bring it home by linking to the hate-crimes and anti-gun and open-borders
argument -- all movements that are led by Jews. You could also call for the
separation of church and state when it comes to the spying Jews at ADL who
indoctrinate our police forces from coast to coast. Again, great article.
But you know the answer to your closing question. When you write about that
publicly, youll finally see whats really going on in this country. All that
is necessary for Jews to triumph is for white men to do nothing.
Jack Halliday
To Lew Rockwell.
The site bearing your name takes an open dig at Muslims today. Yet you run
all sorts of articles where a similar dig at Jews would be appropriate, but
never take the shot. You know what the word for that is? ... You do,
don't ya!
Alex Linder
To Jeff Jacoby.
Of course, Jew Jacoby, you realize that your yid brethren -- you know, the
ones whose chauvinism and racism we white Americans underwrite to the tune
of $5k per yid family per year -- knew about the Marine barracks bombing
before it happened -- and decided not to tell us. I'm sure you wrote a
column mentioning that, didn't you. Jew hypocrite.
To Lew Rockwell, yet again going after Arabs the way he'd never Jews.
Would you dare call it the "anti-Christian" Talmud?
Again Rockwell.
Sir, your site is one of my favorites. My comments get under your skin
because they echo your conscience.
Alex Linder
>From: "Lew Rockwell"
>Sir, if my site bothers you, don't look at it.
In any case, don't write me with your repetitive
complaints.
>> Would you dare call it the "anti-Christian" Talmud?
Again Rockwell.
So you're at it again!
Here's your title:
"Non-Catholics Seek to Control the Making of Catholic Saints"
Why are you scared to write the word "Jew" or "Jews"?
Are you really that afraid of them? What is it they can do to you if you
criticize them -- heck, even just speak or write about them openly? And if
they really are that powerful, then isn't it even more important that you,
one of our more intelligent public men, lead the way in subjecting them to
sustained critical analysis? What would George Washington or Thomas
Jefferson or even Sam Adams do in your shoes? What would Thomas Paine
write, were he alive today? Are you that much less than they?
You know, writing as often as you do, you must occasionally grasp for
topics. Why don't you one day write about why you are afraid to criticize
Jews as such? A bit of introspection along these lines would further your
political education and perhaps you'd come to understand why Big Media has
lost its credibility. What is it that makes Jews above the inspection that
every other group is subject to? Why is there no one among the
libertarians, the conservatives, the "respectable" right willing to touch
the subject? Do you really not realize that A) your gutlessness and
double-standards are evident to your readers; and B) the country is going
down the drain just because worthy white men like yourself are going
crabwise when the deal goes down, as Hunter Thompson would say?
Now, you are free to reproach me with cowardice, impudence,
white-trashiness, whatever you want. But, as you well know, my character
isn't what we're discussing here, and isn't germane. What we're concerned
about here is you, and the face you show the public.
The fact -- whether you choose to believe it or not -- is I am writing to
you BECAUSE I like your site and respect you as a writer. That is why it
hurts and disgusts me so much to see you truckle before the enemy that
breathed life into Political (which is actually, as Joe Sobran points out,
Semitical) Correctness.
Sincerely,
Alex Linder
Nyquist.
Your conservatively correct individualist posture is every bit as dogmatic
as any racist's -- and a good deal more dangerous. The white racist
philosophy makes no exception for the talented tenth of blacks that can lead
civilized productive lives, while your head-in-the-sand approach when it
comes to generalizable truths about race is rapidly turning America into the
third world.
Why don't you be the one conservative in a thousand to actually write about
how your individualist dogma actually applies in the real world, say in
Johannesburg, or Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or downtown Washington, D.C.? Do you
really not see that there is NO WAY to secure those beloved individual
rights for a white man living in a colored context? Or are you simply going
along to get along, staying within the Semitically Correct neoconservative
boundaries to protect your professional interests?
Alex Linder
-------------------------------------------------------------
>From: JRNyquist@aol.com
>Dear Mr. Linder,
>You are mistaken. I am not a conservatively correct individualist. I am
a nationalist. Because of this, I cannot support a "whites only" version of
America because I cannot support a position that would lead to a racial civil
war. And a "whites only" ideology leads directly to such a war.
The civil war appears to be coming anyway, regardless of what we do
about it. Many would say it's already started, given the fifty-to-one
differential in black-on-white vs. white-on-black violent crimes. Literally
tens of millions of crimes against whites have been committed by niggers
since the civil rights laws declaring them our "equals" kicked in. And of
course, outside the country, you may have heard what's going on in
"liberated" South Africa these days, rape and murder capital of the world,
whites living in forts, driving to work in tanks, almost every single one
knowing someone robbed, raped or murdered, thousands fleeing the country
each month. Do these facts ever impinge on your conservatively correct
colorblindness?
A nation that doesn't care to defend its borders has at some level
decided to commit suicide, or, contrarily, allow itself to be murdered by a
determined and influential minority. If the United States were to crack up
into new countries divided along racial lines tomorrow, it would be a
godsend for whites. You keep on sitting on your porch with a shotgun,
watching for incoming Russian or Chinese missiles -- about which you can do
nothing -- while over and under your backyard fence creep dozens of swarthy
brown nasties, having their way with your property. You're worried about
tigers when you ought to be worried about ants and termites.
You know that guy with the huge ranch down on the Arizona border,
overrun by Mexican filth to the tune of hundreds or thousands daily,
chastized in the Jewish AP reports for actually having the gall to defend
his property by arresting illegal mestizos -- do you think he sees Chinese
missiles as the real threat to this country? You're worried about a
theoretical Chinese missile attack when we've had a genuine Mexican invasion
going on 24 hours a day for the last thirty years. If you haven't ever been
in genuine Black or Mexican America, I encourage you to go -- nothing I'd
want to defend, that's for sure. Those have nothing to do with any
civilized country I want to be part of. How many Zimbabwean and South
African white liberals do you think are starting to wonder about their
Jew-media-praised non-racialism, now that those countries have sunk back
into the third world? Do you really not see that the same thing will and is
already happening here? And even more than that -- that you, conservative
commentator, or nationalist commentator, are not allowed to say anything
about it? Do you realize that these points I'm making would qualify me as a
hate criminal in most white countries around the world -- not because they
are infamous lies, but because they're demonstrably true? And that soon
enough they will in America, too? Problems that are racial in nature
require racial solutions. Our crime problem and our pending fragmentation
are nothing but racial problems. Only the media pretends otherwise; on the
ground it's quite clear. And you know, the funniest thing is that the
founders to a man were white racists. They all wanted to ship blacks back
to Africa, and made dire predictions should the races every freely
intermingle. They were right, and all of our present soul-searching and
agonized dithering about finding a way to come together as one founders on
the rock of their simple, factual observation.
Fifty or sixty years ago, all conservatives looked on race the way white
racists do today, and the way the framers did two hundred years ago. That
today their position has reversed is nothing but the measure of Jewish
influence over papers, courts and academia. Why is every race but the white
not only allowed but encouraged and expected to press its interests in
racist terms? The answer is that it fits the divide-and-conquer agenda of
the Jews running the mainstream media. And you conservatives are but a
spurious opposition, tolerated only because you give the illusion of debate,
and even that within increasingly narrow strictures. Can you name one person
at La Raza or the NAACP that gives a hoot in hell about white interests?
Can you name a single Jewish paper that would print an editorial defending
white interests? Or even allow the term to be used? Of course not...
Jewish papers treat the "N" word as holiest insult, won't even spell it out,
while they regularly encourage their writers to use "white trash" "cracker"
"redneck" and "whitebread" as terms of derision -- what they would call
"hate" if they were directed at a fellow hymie or colored. None of these
groups are loyal to the U.S., nor do they even pretend to be. There's no
reason in the world we whites should pretend that they are loyal fellow
citizens of the country that our forefathers built, nor that their interests
coincide, nor that we have any interest in them but picking them off our
hide, pinching their heads off, and flushing them.
Would Washington be safer and saner if we could press a button and all
the Jews went poof! -- of course it would. You know that, and every
conservative knows that. But your individualist dogma prevents you from
making accurate generalizations on paper or online at least, if not in your
heads.
> You should know, in this context, that I support Pat Buchanan's ideas on
immigration policy. I agree that it is unwise to further Balkanize the
country. A further influx of racial diversity will only complicate our
internal setup, as it has complicated the history and politics of other
countries. To some extent, the barn door has already been left open and the
United States has become a multi-racial country. Despite what you may think,
there is no turning back from this situation short of internal warfare.
That's probably true, but as I said above, in many ways that war already
exists. You are like an NEA supporter arguing that vouchers will "destroy
the public schools" -- ie, you're begging the question. Public schools
already are destroyed, and the races already are at war. At least they
would be at war if the whites would fight back; right now the race war is
one-sided. If you lived in a mixed-race working class neighborhood in a big
city, you might have a very different view about the undesirability of a
race war, given what you see around you and the way you are treated at
school. But then most conservative writers I know don't frequent that party
circuit...
>The Constitution of the United States says nothing about the exclusion of
any specific racial group, and there's no way, short of the destruction of our
Republic, that any such exclusion will be adopted.
Again, you're begging the question. It would be easier to argue that the
Constitutional Republic has been destroyed than that it still exists. Which
of our freedoms hasn't been neutered, curtailed or simply expunged? If the
Constitution proclaimed the right to watch porno films 24/7; the right to
receive engraved invites to weenie roasts held by people who hate you; the
right to marry your goldfish; the right to practice your religion anywhere
you wouldn't be ashamed to pick your nose; the right to work for your Uncle
until the fourth of july -- it wouldn't be any different than the way it's
interpreted now. Instead of fixating on a dead scrap of paper, why not take
a look at the living, breathing Jews who interpret life into it just the way
I've outlined? You are arguing like a Jew, full of dishonesty and chutzpah,
when you say "exclusion of any specific racial group." They didn't mention
it not because they thought it didn't matter, but because it was
unthinkable. Their document countenanced slavery, counted blacks as 3/5 a
man for representational purposes, and in their private thoughts and public
speeches, as I've said, they were so worried about the potential for
problems of the Africans in America that many of them belonged to a league
explicity aimed at bulk-shipping the bluegum bush-babies back. And they
were right. And your prating cowardly conservative "colorblind" Semitically
Correct columnists are wrong. What's worst is, many of them know they are
wrong, but what they hey, the checks still clear.
>Hitler attempted
exclusion in Europe during the 1940s and the result was catastrophic for all
of Europe.
It wouldn't have ended as catastrophe if the Jews and the anti-American
Anglophiles hadn't angled us in. A Europe of barren white consumers,
swamped by African niggers is the real catastrophe.
>I don't believe that such an ideology, in the present American
context, would produce a satisfactory end result.
Well, who knows? Another twenty years and you might feel differently.
What if you were the father of that girl in Colorado (to take one example
from a thousand) raped by the van full of zipperheads? Your view might
change radically and overnight. One can always think up theoretical evils
worse than existing ones. But, as I've said repeatedly, look at Zimbabwe
today and South Africa TODAY, and tell me that whites defending white
interests is worse. Or, if you're afraid to do that, maybe you can give me
an alternative column explaining how good old Constitutionalism and
individual rights is going to obtain in RSA, Zimbabwe or the U.S. of the
future. But save your breath, those "reaching out" Republicans have been
trying for twenty years, and hardly made a dent. What's really going to
happen is not that those sons of Mexicans will all become civilized property
owners, with 2 kids, and checking their stocks on the internet and voting
republican -- what's going to happen is that the Republican Party apes the
Demos to stay alive, as you increasingly see it doing. There is really only
one party in this country -- the Fence Party. Seriously, have you ever
wondered why the racial problems of RSA and Zimbabwe track neatly with the
problems in the minority-majority areas in this country? And if our biggest
problems really are racial, and there really isn't anything we can do to
overcome the radical differences between the races, than isn't the sooner we
start openly and explicity defending white civilization and white interests
AS SUCH the better?
> If you've read my columns you know that they are not politically correct
in any sense. I believe the threat of immediate destruction comes from China
and Russia, which are aiming nuclear weapons at us that could kill more than
100 million Americans. Against these nuclear weapons we are defenseless. If
the bosses in Moscow and Beijing decide to level our cities, there is nothing
we could do to stop them. This situation I regard as a national emergency
that overrides all other concerns.
Hey, I have no doubt that you are an excellent analyst of foreign
missile threats. But as you say, there is little or nothing we can do about
them. I don't know, maybe you advocate throwing a few trillion to loyal
American Bernie Schwartz at Loral and the rest of the contractor clowns to
develop an SDI. I have a feeling it ain't workable, and if it is, the same
yids stealing our technology and selling it to China would just do it again.
MAD sucks, but it worked for decades. Even in your chosen sphere of
interest, I think a better way to go about it would be to focus on the
Jewish control of our government that has us attacking countries whose
policies are of no matter to us, thus creating enemies in places average
Americans have barely heard of, let alone could place on a map. But I've
never seen one column outside of William Pierce willing to take on the
Jewish angle. Too afraid, too afraid. You write one of those and I'll sing
your hosannas to the skies... Is there a greek root word for 'government by
ugly jewish trolls'?
But getting back to the point, I find it very parochial and
short-sighted that you think a potential missile attack outweighs a
decades-long foreign invasion that is rapidly filling the country with
people neither culturally nor intellectually nor aesthetically (Mexicans and
niggers are UGLY!) nor to sum it up in a word -- racially -- fit to be
Americans. They are rapidly creating a country that might be better off for
being hit with a Chinese missile. Of course, I'm sure life's still nice in
your suburb, and it's not bad where I live out in the boonies either. But
the signs are on the wall -- everywhere and literally.
> In this context, the Russians would like nothing better than to divide
and conquer the United States by setting one group of Americans against
another.
You know, I was going to make fun of you, but you really seem to believe
this. You sound like you're about ready to scream out "Wolverines!" I can
point out a hundred ways in which Jews are doing exactly what you worry
about -- in this country, today, right now -- and youre worried about some
pitiful ex-power that's being stolen blind by a bunch of Jewish oligarchs --
who, of course, are never identified as such by our courageous domestic
media that can only see "Russian" gangsters. You're worried about some
third-world half-Asiatic basket case drowning in vodka, while in your own
homeland you can't state your opinion of subway writers without getting sent
down for psychological reeducation. So when these clever fake-ex-commies,
these Almost-Lords of Chechnia take over, tell me, how are things going to
be all that different?
>If you think my position is dangerous or dogmatic, I am sorry.
I don't think that. I merely think you need to look closer to home to
find the real problems. I think you are very close to outthinking yourself
on this Russian thing. You seem to lump any criticism of Jews under the
anti-Semitic conspiracy blanket. But when I passed you the information
about Jewish predominance among the founders and theoreticians and
terrorists and political police who founded the Soviet state (and most of
the communist regimes in Eastern Europe), you respond with an article
blaming the Germans for the creation of the USSR. I think you go out of
your way to avoid evidence in this regard. I think it is a very telling
point that the minute the captive populations -- and remember, they'd been
indoctrinated with Jewish-Bolshevist propaganda for years -- had the chance,
they went after their Jewish populations hammer and tongs. You are being
both naive and dogmatic and Semitically Correct in not asking yourself why
this was so. You are setting your "wisdom" that it was just incidental that
men "with Jewish names" (Christ, that phrase alone speaks volumes about your
mentality -- you can't even call them Jews who are Jews) against the
first-hand experience of Eastern Europeans who had their family members
slaughtered by the Jew-dominated political commissars and torturers. Jews
deserve blame, but they don't get it in the American media. My final
observation, as always, is that your generalizations and observations track
with the politically safe line of enquiry as drawn alike by the Jewish
neoconservatives and liberals (ie, by Jews). You can say anything you want
about Germans or Russians or English or Chinese -- but not Jews. There's a
reason for that, as your boss will inform you, should you ever cross the
line. Do you realize that Farah culls "racist" email?
>When Jews and blacks start pointing nuclear weapons at white people, then
you'll have a valid point. But until then, I'm keeping my eye on the real
enemies of our country who are pointing real weapons at it.
The demographic bombs of parasite blacks and illegal-alien Mexicans have
been detonating on our soil for decades, while the Chinese and Russian
missiles have stayed in their silos. And Jews were the single group most
responsible for the immigration and welfare policies that lit the fuse. But
then, if you have a mistaken view of what our country is in the first place,
you will have a mistaken view of what threatens it.
Alex Linder
P.S. You ought to quit going abroad in search of conspiracies to destroy,
and take a look at the open conspiracy in front of you.
>JRN
Unknown.
Proving media bias is like proving the sky is blue. You conservatives never
get tired of it, and I guess it brings in the paycheck. But the real story
is the people behind the screen who manipulate what you're seeing. Who are
these men? Why is their perspective radically different from the average
American's? What can we do about it?
Here are a couple quotations from Spiro Agnew's 1969 speech in Des Moines:
"The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little
group of men who... wield a free hand in selecting, presenting and
interpreting the great issues in our nation." . . .
"We cannot measure this power and influence by the traditional democratic
standards, for these men can create national issues overnight."
Why, instead of proving for the umpteenth time that what anyone with
half a brain can see is true, don't you focus on the men behind the anchors
-- the producers of the nightly news shows. That is where effective
criticism begins. That is where the liberal start to fear you. That is
where you begin to have real effect.
To Justin Raimondo, writer at antiwar.com.
This is to Justin Raimondo. You describe William Pierce as a raving
"nutball" right in the middle of denouncing Thomas Edsall for smearing Pat
Buchanan and the Reform Party. I know William Pierce, and I take offence at
your description. It is the opposite of the truth. You may disagree with
his politics, but you can't say that his position aren't laid out logically
and factually and carefully and consistently. Your cavalier and hateful
dismissals of pro-White third parties undercut your ostensible desire to be
rid of the corrupt two-party hegemony we suffer under today. Pretty
clearly, you have your guidelines for what's politically correct, and the
doctrines of the racist, pro-White Founding Fathers, as well as any of their
modern heritors, fall outside them. Your writing shows some of the symptoms
of the class you wish to displace.
I don't think you would be so angry and dismissive unless you truly thought
A) that Buchanan had a good chance of winning; or B) that only by tarring
his party with "racism" and "anti-Semitism" could his potential be derailed.
That's the subtext I pick up. I think you are being naive. TV is the real
political power in this country, and it is dominated by Jews. You avoid
those two facts as studiously as any other ostensibly rebellious but
practically "responsible" mainstream commentator. Just like Lew Rockwell,
you are excellent in nine-tenths, but you fail in the tenth that matters.
That's why you libertarians never win any victories. White racialism is the
only road that can lead to any kind of real liberty. You may scoff, but
under the rule of Pierce's "Nazi" philosophy you libertarians would be much
freer than you are today in our wonderful world of multicultural diversity.
How are your beloved individualist dogmas faring in South Africa? Have you
ever seen a libertarian write an article proving South Africans are freer
and better off since it dismantled apartheid? But anyone who can live and
write in a California dominated by Brown and Torres and not trace the
relation between colored political power and White slavery is probably
beyond evidence. But to be fair to your extraordinarily sharp mind, I
suspect that you notice the relation but don't have the courage to say it,
for all your iconoclastic-crusader posing.
You are so het up over Edsall using Pierce for his own purposes that you
fail to notice that you are the one doing the smearing. Yes, you are
probably right about Edsall's motives, but how does that absolve you of the
responsibility to treat Pierce and the National Alliance fairly? Edsall at
least quotes these groups and lets them speak their piece. He lets his
reader make up his mind about these small groups as a tactic to "smear" the
Reform party, you claim; whereas you smear these small groups and parties
and don't let your reader make up his mind in an attempt to salvage the
reputation of the Reform party. Neither of you seems pure to me. Similar
tactics, different ends. What you are really saying, is that any pro-White
group is beyond the pale. Why not make that argument openly? Why not drag
your extremist (oops, now I'm verging on your tactics) individual-rights
dogmas out into the light and examine them? It ought to be pretty easy to
quash the arguments of the raving nutballs like Pierce, after all. All of
his radio addresses are available at natvan.com or natall.com.
You know, it's just possible we racists aren't any more corrupt or dishonest
or crazy or morally irregular than you are. But you are afraid to let your
readers consider that, aren't you, Mr. Well- Poisoner?
You shouldn't let your anger get the better of you and lead you to smear
innocent folk. Remember, all you are really responsible for is what you
write. You can do better than you did in this column. I support the
National Alliance. I like to read Pierce's weekly addresses because I find
facts and evidence formed into logical patterns and cast in the mold of
sharp criticism. Pretty much the same thing I get from you. But your
column today, specifically as it concerns the National Alliance, shows that
you are only too willing to smear and unfairly disparage those you think
it's safe to -- and for that kind of junk I might as well stick to the
Washington Post.
Alex Linder
To Free Republic after being denied posting privileges for posting my
"Conversation," which you can read elsewhere on this site.
I don't know you, but you're the name it says to contact. You conservatives
are fakes and cowards. You call yourself "Free" Republic, yet you ban an
article advocating the same racial views as the founders of our once
genuinely free republic. You should be ashamed.
When this country falls apart, I hope you spineless conservatives have saved
up enough from your holy paychecks to have somewhere civilized to run to. I
just can't imagine where that will be.
Yours in giving in and sucking up and "diversity is our greatest strength"
and Semitical Correctness,
Alex Linder
P.S. "[T]he two races, equally free, cannot live under the same
government."
How does it feel to know that you just censored Thomas Jefferson? In
the name of preserving your "Free" Republic. Miserable, cowardly cur, you
are.
To a female conservative writer using the term "white trash."
Dear Ms. Polack (How does that feel? Did I guess right? If not, I'll try
again...)/Bohunk/Untermensch:
Here's an idea that probably scares you. The same Jews that made slobby
dressing popular in the sixties make slobby, slurry language like "white
trash" popular these days. You could just as easily call them lower-class
Whites, a more neutral and respectful description. But in your Semitically
Correct way, you rub their face in it.
You wouldn't be caught dead using nigger, would you? Or black trash? Or
Jewish scum? Or Mexican barrio refuse?
Until you have the guts to stand up against the Jewish mafia that runs the
papers, quit slurring my race, which is also your own.
There really is nobody as gutless as the average conservative, is there?
A. Linder
To libertarian Reason writer Michael Lynch.
This is funny stuff. You know, the only thing more ludicrous than the
poverty pimps' attempt to resuscitate Cambridge is your attempt to explain
how it got so bad without recouse to race.
When you get done with your Cambridge tour, why don't you go to South Africa
and see how your libertarian dogmas are faring over there? Or what about
Rhodesia? How is your ahistorical, extremist racial equality dogma working
out in that pitiful country?
Alex Linder
-----------------------------------------------------------
>From: "Michael Lynch"
>It's Camden, not Cambridge, but nice try. Can I explain your low level of
literacy without recourse to race?
Michael
Sure it's "Camden" if you want to be obvious and dogmatic and
literal-minded, but hey, after your libertarian panacea of low-taxes is
applied, it becomes Cambridge, right?
You can explain my low literacy any way you want; I prefer lack of reading,
genetic limitations and general obtuseness.
Funny how you Semitically Correct libts and cons love the racial argument --
when you can apply it to distinguish yourself from others on the right.
Well, I'd expect nothing less and I'm inured to that commonplace cowardice
anyway. Although, come to think of it, you don't really know that I'm
White, do you? Perhaps you made the assumption from my low literacy....
Whereas a highly literate fellow such as Michael Lynch must have heard the
Mencken quotation about the value of the opinion of someone who isn't free
to hold the opposite? We both know that the scum makes the slum, Lynch, but
I'm the only one who can say it. You have to preserve your professional
viability, and that queers anything you write about race or any other
political question where the Jews have set the line. Stick to privatizing
trash collection, Lynch. There we at least know we're getting what you
really think.
Here's what freedom feels like, Mike:
http://www.front14.org/regmeister/vnn/index.htm
You ought to try it sometime.
Again Lynch.
Michael, the link works. The server apparently was down for a while. Your
Jewish friends are very good at getting honest sites kicked off the free
servers, so we have to turn to smaller operations with limited manpower and
funds. Actually, that'd be a good article for you, writing about the
concentration of ISPs. Are you aware that the Jews are buying them up, and
that there are increasingly fewer backbones over which traffic travels, and
that those facts taken in tandem with the Jewish drive to trump the First
Amendment with hate crimes legislation make the Internet as bastion of
freedom an increasingly dubious proposition? Would make a good cover story.
Quite contrary to the popular notion. You guys at Reason like exploding
popular myths. Do you think Reason would go for it? Me either...
http://www.front14.org/regmeister/vnn/index.htm
I indeed am a trash collector: Jewish and Black and Brown Trash are my
specialty. The folks you work with only pick up the White version. You
advocates of "freedom" slur your own race with "white-bread," "white trash,"
"redneck," and "cracker" but you wouldn't be caught dead saying nigger.
Let me put the question to you one more time: If you toured Camden and came
to the obvious conclusion, backed by all historical evidence, that it was
inherently and ineradicably slummy because of the innate qualities of the
Blacks inhabiting it, and that bad tax and social policies merely
exacerbated native conditions, would Reason publish it? Or would they go
blue in the face and start sputtering if you said, hey, I'm sorry...I went
there thinking taxes and welfare-state policies were the problem, and they
are, but there's something much deeper here that's beyond solution... We
both know that article would never see the light of day. That's what I mean
by Semitical Correctness. You young libts speak so loudly about your
freedom and your boldness and your radical anti-Establishment-ism, but all I
see is the same old shying at the Jew-set barriers.
The conclusion, Mr. Lynch, is inescapable: You are just another
new-generation Semitically Correct libertarian, doctrinaire and
evidence-disrespecting as any leftist; a man who for all his proclaimed love
of freedom is dog-chained to racial dogmas the Founders would have laughed
away in a minute. Dogmas that are discoloring and killing our nation. But
as long as you don't have to live in Camden, as long as you keep collecting
a paycheck -- hey, that's what matters, right?
Michael, remember all those things Orwell said about seeing what's in front
of your nose? And the importance of stating the obvious? How do you think
he'd respond to you after reading your explanation of Camden? I think he'd
shake his head. You're seeing things the way you've been trained, the way
that's consonant with your professional interests. That's fine. But spare
us the bleating about how radical and pro-freedom you are. You aren't. The
best thing you could do to serve the cause of liberty is read what the
Founders really thought about "Camden" (hint: by Camden, I am not being
literal.) They knew it could never become Cambridge, no matter how far
taxes were reduced. No, what they said about race would make you and
Virginia cry. Of course, they were free men -- free to believe what they
thought right -- while you are enslaved to what's Correct.
To Lew Rockwell.
Thanks for advising me to start my own site. Here it is:
http://www.front14.org/regmeister/vnn/index.htm
As Mr. Hand said to Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, I'm going to write it on the
board and see that you get full credit.
Anyway, visit it and read my review of Gottfried's book on conservatism.
From now on be careful because I'm setting up a subpage on conservative and libertarian
cowardice and double standards. Most of you (as I've criticized you) treat Jews one way
and normal Whites another. You also refuse to address race directly. Both are grounds
for inclusion.
The difference between your site and mine is the difference between advocating freedom and
practicing it.
Anyway, I reiterate that I do like your site; it's my first visit. You have a pretty sure
hand in selecting articles to post. Perhaps 70% are of interest, a higher rate than any
other news site I've found. If you weren't so scared to address race and Jews openly,
you'd be damn near perfect.
Yours toward the death of Semitical Correctness,
A. Linder
Again Rockwell.
You had to do it, didn't you? "Non-Christians"....
Do you really not see your almost palpable fear of calling a Jew a Jew?
Are any of the people -- any -- whining about the beatification non-Jewish?
What are you so afraid of?
You know you wouldn't shrink for a minute from naming them Arabs, if they
were the ones opposed?
It is only by the truckling of good men like you that this Semitic double
standard persists... Can you really not see that?
Well, when I get my subpage up, it pains me to tell you this title/intro is
going up near the top.
Come on, Sr Rockwell, you're better than this....
To Rolly & Wells, columnists at the Salt Lake Tribune.
The National Alliance is a solid organization, and I recommend it. If
you're White, why not join the one group that fights for your interests?
That's how the Jews, Blacks and Mexicans do it... They want to lie about
your ancestors while helping themselves to your paycheck. The NA is the
only group out there in open opposition to the people and policies that have
made large sections of the country a cesspool.
I used to live in Salt Lake, and it's a beautiful White town. But that's
changing. Read down the criminal rolls in Salt Lake and notice how many of
those apprehended are Mexican nationals or other minorities. Those people
don't belong here. They have only entered because the Jew-led liberals want
to pack the country with coloreds to enhance their political chances, while
the Republican stock-market softbellies support anything keeping labor costs
low and dividends high. The Jews think destroying America through
multicultural immigration is in their interest; the Republicans don't give a
damn as long as it doesn't affect them personally.
Media lies to the contrary, the National Alliance is about honor, more than
anything. It's about saving all those things that a Mexican laborer, a
Black welfare recipient, a Jew like Alan Dershowitz or Dick Morris could
never understand but can destroy.
A. Linder
Back to Backtalk Index
|