23 April, 2016
The Continuing Dispossession of White People
Posted by Socrates in America, anti-White themes, Cultural Marxism, dispossession & destruction, Diversity, diversity is hate, jewed culture, jewed politics, Jewish genetics, money, multiculturalism, Socrates, Western civilization, Western culture, Western decline at 12:10 pm | 
Permanent Link
A non-White (Treasury Secretary Jack Lew) removes a White man from the U.S. $20 bill and puts a non-White woman onto it [1]. What an outrage. America is a Western country and non-Whites are not Western. Harriet Tubman has no business being on U.S. money. Furthermore, the back of the new $10 bill will feature a negress named, uh, Sojourner Truth. (I, for one, will not be using this new money).
[1] Jews are not genetically White, despite having “White” skin color
23 April, 2016 at 3:25 pm
Well, the South is currently under the Federal yoke of its 3d Reconstruction, so who’s going to be carved on Stone Mountain to shadow Davis and his army in tow? MLK, Leo Frank, etc. It’s coming.
I can here the bull frog callin’ me. Wonder if Leo Frank still hangin’ to the tree.
23 April, 2016 at 4:55 pm
All of this is building up to an unprecedented pressure point against the eternally innocent tribe of Moses. There have yet to be any officially recorded pogroms in the Western Hemisphere. But, like the long-overdue seismic “big-one” due in LA and San Francisco, this one will surely come – and with a reading of 8.9 on the Third Reichter Scale. One can only pray that he is alive when this blessed day comes.
23 April, 2016 at 5:06 pm
A jew note, which some people erroneously call a “dollar”,
is a piece of paper, promising to pay nothing – classic invention
of big jew.
As such, as soon as you make money, get it out of jew notes
immediately and into something of value… precious metals,
land, goods….
Perhaps it’s even good that phony jew notes actually have the
images of the cultural Marxism they believe in. Maybe it’ll take
a nigger like Snoop Doggy Dogg on a “dollar bill” to wake people
up.
24 April, 2016 at 9:47 am
I read a vicious article on Andrew Jackson this a.m. The author cut him up like a boarding house pie. Such calumny and libel, I have not read before. These people, our enemies, are illustrating a malignant rage not witnessed often by society.
11 November, 2016 at 11:40 pm
There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.
The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.
Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.
Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a cellphone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.
The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.
Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.
Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.
Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?
Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.
If there is no victim, there is no crime.
We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.
Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.
Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?
Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of freedom?
Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?
If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.
If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.
If you allow others to swear then you can, too.
If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.
Who wants to live in a prison?
Think. Question everything.