I really like this new forum on VNN, I'll post my messages here from now on. I was wondering what the members here say to people who say but this is a free country or this is the freest country in the world '". I've mentioned the way the government controls who employers hire and also has laws pertaining to real estate and oversees rentals and homesellers. I've also explained to people how our foreign policy is set without input from us. I also think that the unbelievable amount of crime we suffer from shows that we are oppressed. But people will still say we can travel anywhere we want and we can speak up about things we don't like. I don't think we can speak up about the real problems here , not whites any way. This seems like a real problem in attracting more whites to the WN movement, since so many say "this is a free country". Pat Buchanan said in one article of his the government controls every action of the citizens in this country now. But this hasn't gotten through to the average person yet. What's a good answer to that statement?

I really like this new forum on VNN, I'll post my messages here from now on. I was wondering what the members here say to people who say but this is a free country or this is the freest country in the world '". I've mentioned the way the government controls who employers hire and also has laws pertaining to real estate and oversees rentals and homesellers. I've also explained to people how our foreign policy is set without input from us. I also think that the unbelievable amount of crime we suffer from shows that we are oppressed. But people will still say we can travel anywhere we want and we can speak up about things we don't like. I don't think we can speak up about the real problems here , not whites any way. This seems like a real problem in attracting more whites to the WN movement, since so many say "this is a free country". Pat Buchanan said in one article of his the government controls every action of the citizens in this country now. But this hasn't gotten through to the average person yet. What's a good answer to that statement?

First, I'm glad you like this new forum. That's our mission, attract good, serious people.

It's difficult to tell people they're not free when they think they are. I would begin with taxes. Ask them if they were forced to turn over 100% of their income to the government whether they'd consider that slavery. So what does it make them if that figure is 40-50%?

Point out that it is illegal to place an ad to rent your house to Whites. Or to advertise that you seek to hire only Whites. ILLEGAL. And that this has been done in the name of "civil rights."

I'm afraid the unfortunate fact is that the country is so dumbed down and indoctrinated by decades of jewish lies, that these points are too subtle for most whites. They'll go with you some on the taxes, but as polls have shown, the average American couldn't tell you the difference between Karl Marx and the Constitution.

Try to find reflections of our truths in their daily lives. Then draw a connection to the fact that it is usually literally ILLEGAL to do anything about a certain problem.

Black crime -- it is illegal for whites to segregate themselves. Both parties celebrate this! So where's the freeedom and diversity when everyone's saying the same thing? Make connection to South Africa and Zimbabwe, and what's happening there. Assuming they've heard of these countries.

Mexican invasion -- tell them who is responsible for opening the borders. This is information that virtually nobody knows.

Does everyone know the freedon bit by J. Nicholson in Easy Rider? He tells Billy that although Americans call themselves free, that if they see an actual free person, it scares them. But it doesn't make them running scared, it makes them mean. Free to travel wherever we want? After being checked out a**hole to appetite. Free to own guns. If you pick the right one, and have never done anything worse that spitting on the sidewalk. Free to hire who we choose. As long as you have enough gov't. approved minorities first.
If you are hearing specific examples of how we're free, that you'd like a refutation for, just post them.

Does everyone know the freedon bit by J. Nicholson in Easy Rider? He tells Billy that although Americans call themselves free, that if they see an actual free person, it scares them. But it doesn't make them running scared, it makes them mean. Free to travel wherever we want? After being checked out a**hole to appetite. Free to own guns. If you pick the right one, and have never done anything worse that spitting on the sidewalk. Free to hire who we choose. As long as you have enough gov't. approved minorities first.
If you are hearing specific examples of how we're free, that you'd like a refutation for, just post them.

And if we have so much Freedom of Speech, why does everyone in the "mainstream" hold the exact same views on race? That it doesn't exist?? Really, when has Bush Jr. ever used the word "White" as in White race??? And yet the fools in the masses still somehow assume that the Republican Party represents the White majority.

And if we have so much Freedom of Speech, why does everyone in the "mainstream" hold the exact same views on race? That it doesn't exist?? Really, when has Bush Jr. ever used the word "White" as in White race??? And yet the fools in the masses still somehow assume that the Republican Party represents the White majority.

EXACTLY! Lemmings boast of how much "freedom" this country has and how we are free to do anything we want yet, thats not really true is it? As you pointed out, the mainstream "opinion" is one and the same. Different opinions are shunned/banned/hateful/etc. In such a "free" country, why is it that way?

Its just one of those things that lemmings wont ever realize on their own.

Just keep the fast food joints open, keep releasing new rap CD's and keep them television shows running and nothing else matters.

Recently, the Television quoted the Immigration Minister, as saying that to be a British Citizen, is something to be proud of.

I immediately wrote to her, asking her to prove it. But despite numerous letters, she just will not reply. I am sure that if she could prove it, she would then have answered.

How the hell can I be proud of being a British Citizen, when as a Black man, I can be arrested and locked up for several hours, when I have not done anything wrong. Furthermore, there is nothing one can do about it: the Police Complaints Authority will not investigate; no solicitors would take my Case and no Organization dealing with Justice and Human Right will take up my Case. This proves without the shadow of a doubt that there is no Justice and Human Rights in this country.

Yes, since 1995 I have a prisoner in my own home, unable to go out anymore, for fear of being arrested and locked up again. I was arrested simply because I was trying to collect my own two children from school and locked up for four hours. Since, I have contacted the Police Complaints Authority, hundreds of Solicitors, and Organizations who supposedly deal with Justice and Human Rights, and there is absolutely no one who wants to know. I shudder to think what will happen to me, physically and mentally, if for the rest of my life, I cannot go out of my house any more; but there does not seem to be anything I can do about it.

On top of that, the government insists of giving me the Right to Vote in England. This is adding insult to injury. I do not want the Right to Vote in England; I refuse the right to Vote.

But as the Electoral Commission insist that I must have the right to vote, whether I like it or not, I must ask someone to take my Case up to the Home secretary – I want him to either deport me or have me executed. This would be more humane than giving me the right to vote and then refused all Justice and Human Right, as a Black man.

If any one is truly interested in Justice and Human Right, I would ask him or her to contact me, so that I can provide the full details of my Whole Case.

Please contact me on my email address, which is: f_chorley@hotmail.com

Thank you

France Chorley

From the North of London,
England

Does everyone know the freedon bit by J. Nicholson in Easy Rider?

Reminds me of another movie, Beyond the Law, (http://imdb.com/title/tt0103805/) where Charlie Sheen is an undercover cop trying to bring down a gang of bikers. Naturally, he is attracted to their way of life more and more and begins to doubt who he is, etc, etc.

In this movie he sits down with the biker leader and some other guys out in the open, at night, and the leader gives a speech about why you should be a biker. He talks about how people waste their lives as drones, and when you realize life that way is without meaning and going nowhere "there is no choice: you have to join us."

It is one of the best speeches ever. Such a shame I never wrote it down. Now, I'm not one to look for excuses for spending my life in a biker gang or similar, but any man who does not feel the wilderness beckon is no man at all. You have to strike a balance: build a life with a home and an income, but use it as a platform to do greater things, freer things, things so many of the lost souls in the concrete city would not dare dream of. When will you rage?

We in the US live in tyranny. In many ways this tyranny is more insidious w than straight to the point physical tyranny like one might find in say Castro controlled Cuba or Idi Amin's Uganda of the 1970's.
As horrid as these examples are, the current US tyranny is much more subtle but just as dangerous for us in the long run. In a way, it would be better if the Zogsters wanted to openly discuss their plans for subjugation of our personal freedoms. But no. They do not do this like Castro and Amin did. Why?
Because the White Man (and probably others) would not let this happen and fight back. The Military we have now (all volunteer, many weekend warriors liek the National Guard) would rebel aganist the Zog generals, politicians and corporate weasels quickly.

The select few who have decided to make the US the tyrannical empire it is now are mostly jews, bought for white politicians, corporate scumbags and media/academic intellectuals who wish to put forth their agenda upon everyone else.
America is now weak willed. All about money, demographic destruction, cultural havoc and whats good for the jews.
What's good for the jews is having White people think they are free when they are not.

The beginning of this tyranny can be traced to 1865 when the founding principles of the fathers of this country lost out to other interests who were primarily commerical, financial and ideologically contrary to most average Americans interests.
Ah, power usually attracts tyrannical people.
Perfect place for the jews to prosper, which they have.

The end result is what we have today. I'd say Dr. Antichrist is pretty much right on target.
Things are not going well for us.

Well said Derrick, I've thought that before too, how much better for us if the zionist-liberal leaders were honest about what they're doing. Everything is scarier now i've learned a lot in the past couple years that's bad. There's a book I read called America the Conquered, where he talks about the changes that have happened, the changes in men, women, changes in the military and the police, he describes how we once had peace officers and now they are law enforcement officers writing endless tickets and watching for whites committing crimes. If they were honest about people would react a little better and we wouldn't be made to look like the nuts. I thought before it's like white people are standing close to a cliff and they keep telling us to move over and we move and then they come back saying no move further over and it never stops. They have arranged an alliance between our enemies and the majority of whites don't see it.

It's obviously a free country. You’re using this board, aren’t you?

Every single person on this forum is free to say how they feel about jews. Or blacks. Or other non-whites. Completely free. Say what you want about them. Sounds like freedom to me. And it’s not just limited to this forum.

If you wanted to, you could stand out on a street corner, screaming about how much you “hate those evil satanic jews”. You wouldn’t be very popular, but you are certainly free to do so.

You want free speech? You’re soaking in it!

Glex, the master of the meaningless obviosity. Telling the prisoner that he can cavort in his cell as he pleases and thus is free.

It's obviously a free country. You’re using this board, aren’t you?

Every single person on this forum is free to say how they feel about jews. Or blacks. Or other non-whites. Completely free. Say what you want about them. Sounds like freedom to me. And it’s not just limited to this forum.

If you wanted to, you could stand out on a street corner, screaming about how much you “hate those evil satanic kikes”. You wouldn’t be very popular, but you are certainly free to do so.

You want free speech? You’re soaking in it!

You want free speech? You’re soaking in it!

Sure. Soaking in it, when schools and public libraries ban URLs from the computers, and proudly display communist and anti-White literature, but not nationalism. Soaking in it, when your grades fall if you say something, eh, not "kosher." Sure, the media treat all sides fairly, giving everyone a free hearing. *S*

Absolutely soaking in freedom, when the feds launch a campaign to jail dissenters at trumped-up charges. And hey, everybody is allowed to rent radio space, right? It's not like there would be any trouble for a guy who allowed a nationalist to air his show. Nope, never happened.

And gosh darn it, who can deny that Hollywood movies and shows, part of the world's most powerful propaganda machine, treat nationalists fairly? I mean, they talk about "proud White men" just as often as they talk about "proud Black men", right? Oh, yes. After all, doesn't Renée Zellweger pep-talk Tom Cruise with a "You're a strong, victorious White man" right after the Negro wife has done the same to her hubby?

To pretend that it's only a matter of what is written in law is bogus. The Jews do their thing legally and illegally, and the law follows suit. Speak out against that, and it's "hate speech".

It's allowed to use slurs against Whites in public, but not against Latinos, not even in a private conversation -- then you go to jail. Some freedom. You aren't allowed to build a store or a club only for your own kind, in the U.S. or anywhere in the West -- some freedom.

Glex,
Since this is the new civil forum I will refrain from personally whipping you like a scolded dog. I guess Fredrik's retort pretty much accomplished that, albiet without a few choice words I would have used when describing that rotten vegetable you refer to as a brain.

Obviously, you missed the basic jist of everyones comments which were in a nutshell that we have the illusion of being free.
Sure, one can say on the web how much you despise the jews or blacks or what have you.....push the envelope a bit more and you wind up in jail for hate speech.

Fredrik provided a few examples of how your sense of "freedom" does not translate to substantive freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to question those in charge.
Freedom of the press? I won't even bring this one up since we all know that jews effectively have neutered real objective journalism for their own selfish groups interests.

Or would you deny this fact?
Do you have anything to add about examples cited to you that illustrate that in the 'real world', our freedom is not what it used to be and in fact, actually ceases to exist when discussing SERIOUS racial, nationalistic and jewish topics????

Yes, I can sit here and type "I HATE THE JEWS AND WANT THEM TO PERISH BECAUSE THEY ARE MY RACE'S ENEMIES"......for now. Soon, if the JEWS have their way, that will be illegal too.
Presently, when Whites wish to look out for their own self interests, that is deemed illegal and 'hate'.

So, tell me once again about our freedoms.
We have the freedom to make a few shekels, recite the patriot propoganda and go along quietly without TAKING ACTION about our current racial plight.

Your sense of freedom is precisely what zog wants you to think you have.
Don't even think about DOING ANYTHING besides verbally screaming about it.
Talk? ok at the moment (as long as it does not INCITE).
Action? No, you can't do that.

Sure. Soaking in it, when schools and public libraries ban URLs from the computers, and proudly display communist and anti-White literature, but not nationalism.
If you were in power, what would you ban? Interracial pornography? I bet you would. But your ban is morality, while their ban is "lack of freedom".

Soaking in it, when your grades fall if you say something, eh, not "kosher."
Bullshirt. Urban legend. Point out to me where a student has said something not kosher and had their grades dropped because of it.

Sure, the media treat all sides fairly, giving everyone a free hearing. *S*
If you owned a media outlet, I’m sure you’d give a fair hearing to the next shaved head, bow-tie wearing brother that wanted to run his “kill all whiteys” editorial in your paper, right? You’d give a fair hearing to him, wouldn’t you?

Absolutely soaking in freedom, when the feds launch a campaign to jail dissenters at trumped-up charges. And hey, everybody is allowed to rent radio space, right? It's not like there would be any trouble for a guy who allowed a nationalist to air his show. Nope, never happened.
So you think freedom is your right to someone else’s airtime? You should be allowed to rent my airtime, even if it goes against my beliefs? What about my freedom to do with my airtime as I see fit? But honestly, what is stopping you, other than money, from putting together your own radio show? Hell, why not your own TV station? You have your own Internet site. So it obviously isn’t impossible.

And gosh darn it, who can deny that Hollywood movies and shows, part of the world's most powerful propaganda machine, treat nationalists fairly?
Movies about the civil war don’t treat slave owners fairly either. You know what the prefect counter to that viewpoint is? Your own viewpoint! What’s stopping you? Show me the law that stops you. Not social convention, the actual law.

I mean, they talk about "proud White men" just as often as they talk about "proud Black men", right? Oh, yes. After all, doesn't Renée Zellweger pep-talk Tom Cruise with a "You're a strong, victorious White man" right after the Negro wife has done the same to her hubby?
Sounds like you’ve identified a potential market! Obviously you feel the need for movies that feature chubby girls affirming a pretty boy’s skin color. Then produce it! Make it! Distribute it! If the market is as big as you say it is, you’ll have no problem.

Glex,
Since this is the new civil forum I will refrain from personally whipping you like a scolded dog.
Phew! Thanks. I was worried about that.


Obviously, you missed the basic jist of everyones comments which were in a nutshell that we have the illusion of being free.
Sure, one can say on the web how much you despise the jews or blacks or what have you.....push the envelope a bit more and you wind up in jail for hate speech.
Push the envelope? You are talking about the systematic and total destruction of an entire people! You are talking about genocide of the jews. I’d say the envelope is about as pushed as it’s going to get.

And yet, despite “day of the rope”, despite “vertical expulsion”, despite “Nothing goes right until we start killing jews”, no one here is in jail. You could go out on the street, right now, and say those things too. You might not be loved for doing do, but you are free to say it. If that's not freedom, what is?

Freedom of the press? I won't even bring this one up since we all know that jews effectively have neutered real objective journalism for their own selfish groups interests.
Just like you would do if you owned the newspapers.


Do you have anything to add about examples cited to you that illustrate that in the 'real world', our freedom is not what it used to be and in fact, actually ceases to exist when discussing SERIOUS racial, nationalistic and jewish topics????
Yes. This discussion. Here we are, having a rational conversation about jews, and no stormtroopers are breaking down the door to stop us. I’ll bet that you are NOT using your computer furtively, under cover of darkness, jumping from proxy to proxy, lest your terrible secret be found out, right?

You want another example? Linder’s demonstration against Brown. Did the police stop him? Was he arrested? Killed? None of that? Hmm! But I thought he didn’t have the freedom to so those things! How did those two dozen protesters of Linder get away with breaking the law like that? What law, you ask? Exactly.

And before you say “But Linder had restrictions”, etc. of course he did. Any demonstration, for any group, no matter what they have to say is going to have a few restrictions.

Yes, I can sit here and type "I HATE THE JEWS AND WANT THEM TO PERISH BECAUSE THEY ARE MY RACE'S ENEMIES"......for now. Soon, if the JEWS have their way, that will be illegal too.
If you had your way, all jews would be killed outright. Being jewish itself would be illegal. Is that what you call freedom?




We have the freedom to make a few shekels, recite the patriot propoganda and go along quietly without TAKING ACTION about our current racial plight.
Take action all you want. Just don’t break the law doing it. It’s not too much to ask, is it?

Edited by Demonica [No Flaming-Please read the rules of this forum which are here:
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=63859&postcount=1 ]

If you were in power, what would you ban? Interracial pornography? I bet you would. But your ban is morality, while their ban is "lack of freedom".

You are avoiding the issue. But by doing so, you also admit that I am right: there is no real freedom. You can only resort to defending that by saying "in your society there wouldn't be freedom either!"

I rest my case. Your comment about us "soaking is freedom" was wrong, as you have now admitted.


Bullshirt. Urban legend. Point out to me where a student has said something not kosher and had their grades dropped because of it.

This is the Civil Forum. Go on using that language and you will not be staying.

Urban legend? How about my own experience from where I live? Or, to take one example of many, that of my ex-gf in the northern U.S.

The classrooms are soaked in anti-White propaganda, from Stockholm to Los Angeles. Only a blind man, or a brainwashed one, could fail to see that.

At my ex-girlfriend's school they have something called "kill whitey day" every year. On that day the Black gangs beat up as many Whites as they can. The teachers do nothing to stop it. Nothing is written about it in the newspapers. Everybody turns a blind eye to it, because they know it is forbidden to criticize Blacks.

What would happen if a school had a "kill Blacks day"? Do you know of any school that has such a day? Me neither. The local newspaper would definitely write about it: "the racism inherent in our society!" The teachers would be handing out brochures about how the evil White racism is the main problem in society -- oh wait, they are doing that already. In the U.S., and in Sweden, and in Belgium and the rest of the West.

Funny thing, working as a temp teacher for a while I saw just this kind of brochure, even while the main problem with violence in the schools was -- what? Swedish kids being harrassed and beaten by the Arab and Black gangs in the hallways. The teachers talked about it in low voices in the teacher's lounge, making sure that the most fanatically anti-White teachers wouldn't hear what they were saying, because then they might find themselves out of jobs. Swedish girls are molested by the Arabs, and noone does anything. And how do they talk about the ever-increasing violence in the schools in the literature handed out by the School Department? "Violence and racism will not be accepted!" -- with stories about how Swedish "racism" causes all the problems, how Swedish "racists" beat up the poor immigrants and harrass them -- so far removed from reality as it could possibly be. The Arabs and Blacks even threaten the teachers, not only the Swedish students. When Swedes talk to each other about it, we say "Soon it will be just as bad as in the U.S." Actually, in the least White areas it already is. They get the most money and the most aid in a number of ways, but they show the worst results.


So you think freedom is your right to someone else’s airtime? You should be allowed to rent my airtime, even if it goes against my beliefs?

You misread that.
What I wrote was that those who give airtime to nationalists receive threats of many kinds. Was that clearer?

Jewish organizations call them making threats about shutting down their business. If they don't comply, the Jews call their sponsors, making threats about breaking them if they don't stop sponsoring the "racist radio organization." And the Jews have the full cooperation of the Jew-dominated media behind them, so they get what they want.

This is how the National Alliance was pushed off the air by Jews all over the United States. This is why your comments about the law are ludicrous. The Jews do their thing laws or no laws.


Sounds like you’ve identified a potential market! Obviously you feel the need for movies that feature chubby girls affirming a pretty boy’s skin color. Then produce it! Make it! Distribute it! If the market is as big as you say it is, you’ll have no problem.

*L* Perfect. You just stepped into the perfect example of Jewish control: television. What happened when Mel Gibson made a movie that wasn't even nationalist, but simply treated White people's religion seriously? He got blacklisted in Hollywood. Jewish organizations and media tried to harrass him into dropping the movie, and when they couldn't they made sure he won't get to work in that town again. And anyone who breaks the taboo will be thrown out in the cold as well. This is how the Jews win: by sticking together and attacking their enemies as one.

What the rest of the world has to do is give them a taste of their own medicine.

You say "show me the law that...." still pretending that we were talking only about the law. You are trying to make a strawman to attack. We weren't talking about the law. We were talking about actual reality. You find that hard to argue with, so you must pretend that it's about laws only.

But you want examples of laws? Fine. How about the "civil rights" laws that ban us from owning a shop, diner, hotel, etc for Whites only? Whites must not be allowed to associate only with Whites.

More laws: you are banned from telling the truth about race, about Jews, in Sweden, in Norway, in Denmark, in Germany, in France, and so on and so on. The United States is the ONLY COUNTRY where the right to free speech still exists, a blessing given by the White Founders to their people. And even there, it only exists in theory, hardly ever in practice. "Hate" speech is illegal, which confirms that it doesn't even really exist in theory anymore, only officially.

You cannot deny this, can you? Your only answer to it was that "You wouldn't allow free speech either!" So you have basically retracted your attempt at claiming there is free speech. Now you just have to stop being a hypocrite about it.

You are avoiding the issue. But by doing so, you also admit that I am right: there is no real freedom. You can only resort to defending that by saying "in your society there wouldn't be freedom either!"

I rest my case. Your comment about us "soaking is freedom" was wrong, as you have now admitted.
And you are avoiding the question too. You admit that in your perfect society, there would also be restrictions on freedom. That ain't free, buddy. In your perfect society, no one would be free to choose their wives or husbands if that choice was "race: non-white", would they?

So in this society certain freedoms are curtailed. In your perfect society, some freedoms are curtailed. Can you tell me a place were this isn't the case?




This is the Civil Forum. Go on using that language and you will not be staying.
Wuh, you going to tell mommy I said bullSHIRT?


At my ex-girlfriend's school they have something called "kill whitey day" every year. On that day the Black gangs beat up as many Whites as they can. The teachers do nothing to stop it. Nothing is written about it in the newspapers. Everybody turns a blind eye to it, because they know it is forbidden to criticize Blacks.
BULL! BULL! BULL! Utter BULL! That simply isn't true. If it is, prove it. If something like this really was true, it would be all over this forum! Why haven't you brought this up before? Because it's pure bull! That's why. Prove me wrong. Give me proof of "kill whitey day".

Swedish girls are molested by the Arabs, and noone does anything.
No one, no where? Sure. And I'm sure no Swedish white man has ever molested a girl. Is it worse because an Arab does it? What does a Swedish girl care who molested her?

how Swedish "racists" beat up the poor immigrants and harrass them -- so far removed from reality as it could possibly be.
So Swedish racists don't beat up immigrants?


What I wrote was that those who give airtime to nationalists receive threats of many kinds. Was that clearer?
How's this for clarity? People often threaten what they don't like. Just a few days ago, here in America, an art gallery owner was punched in the face for "anti-American" art she had in the window. She got threats too. Do you really think you can put forward beliefs like "kill all jews" and not be attacked for it? Is taht what you think freedom is? To be able to say or do anything without consequence?

Jewish organizations call them making threats about shutting down their business. If they don't comply, the Jews call their sponsors, making threats about breaking them if they don't stop sponsoring the "racist radio organization."
If you had an organization, you would do the exact same thing!

This is how the National Alliance was pushed off the air by Jews all over the United States. This is why your comments about the law are ludicrous. The Jews do their thing laws or no laws.
Tell me more about how they were pushed. I'm not familiar with it. But really, isn't it freedom for them to do so? They protest and use their power against something they don't like. So do you. What's the problem?


*L* Perfect. You just stepped into the perfect example of Jewish control: television. What happened when Mel Gibson made a movie that wasn't even nationalist, but simply treated White people's religion seriously? He got blacklisted in Hollywood. Jewish organizations and media tried to harrass him into dropping the movie, and when they couldn't they made sure he won't get to work in that town again. And anyone who breaks the taboo will be thrown out in the cold as well. This is how the Jews win: by sticking together and attacking their enemies as one.
It is a perfect example, you are right. Because even though these "all powerfull" jews did everything they could to stop a film they didn't agree with (just like you would, BTW), they couldn't silence him. The film went on to gross mega millions. If he jews were really as powerful as you say, the film would not have come out at all, would it?

And, in keeping with the topic, if he didn't have freedom, he wouldn't have been able to put out the film at all would he? So, logically, the fact that he was free to make it, and we are free to watch it, proves we have the freedom! It may be unpopular to make a movie saying jews killed jesus, but it's not illegal, is it? Guess we have freedom after all.



You say "show me the law that...." still pretending that we were talking only about the law. You are trying to make a strawman to attack. We weren't talking about the law. We were talking about actual reality. You find that hard to argue with, so you must pretend that it's about laws only.
Talking about the law isn't a strawman. It's drawing a lie between actual law and societal law. Break an actual law, go to prison. Break a social law, and people may not like you. See the difference? Hating jews isn't against the law. It's unpopular. you want the freedom to say you hate jews? You got it. You want that freedom, but also free of consequences? Where on earth is that possible?

But you want examples of laws? Fine. How about the "civil rights" laws that ban us from owning a shop, diner, hotel, etc for Whites only? Whites must not be allowed to associate only with Whites.
It's a bad law. Everyone should be free to associate/disassociate with anyone they want.

More laws: you are banned from telling the truth about race, about Jews, in Sweden, in Norway, in Denmark, in Germany, in France, and so on and so on. The United States is the ONLY COUNTRY where the right to free speech still exists, a blessing given by the White Founders to their people.
Well there you go. United States is the ONLY COUNTRY where the right to free speech still exists. I rest my case.

And even there, it only exists in theory, hardly ever in practice. "Hate" speech is illegal, which confirms that it doesn't even really exist in theory anymore, only officially.
Hate speech isn't "I hate all jews". It's "Kill all jews because they are jews". Where in the world is freedom of speech defined as "anything goes, including incitement to murder?"

Your only answer to it was that "You wouldn't allow free speech either!" So you have basically retracted your attempt at claiming there is free speech. Now you just have to stop being a hypocrite about it.
Well, you wouldn't, would you? That really is the point. You don't want freedom, you want your kind of freedom. Your "freedom" is simply allowing what you want, and not allowing what you don't. That's not freedom. It's just as unfree as you decry America to be!

In your perfect society, would a black man be "free" to date a white woman? Would a black man even be free to exist? No? Then you don't want freedom.

But let's define the term so we both understand. What do you envision "freedom" to mean? Tell me what your "free" society would look like.

freedom in nationalist political usage going all the way back to the pelopenesian war has always meant freedom from something, usually alien political control. Thus the Pelopensian League fought for freedom for Greeks from Persian conquest. Not freedom for women or helots or Egyptians or heberews, but freedom for Greeks from alien control.

Thus a Swede wants Sweden run by Swedes and not Jews and their appointed Quislings.

Thus a White American wants America run by Whites and not blacks or Jews or their quislings in turn, because they are aliens regardless of their nominal citizenship or not.

Freedom thus means national-ethnic sovereignity, or "self determination" to use a phrase more au courant.

Alex Linder said: "Point out that it is illegal to place an ad to rent your house to Whites."

That's true. Strangely, it's still legal to post on any dating site that you "seek a white man" or "a white woman". Think about it. Isn't that the hardest, coldest, most forceful expression of overt racism that's still legal and still SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE? Really, how much more racist can you get? You are clearly stating to every reader of such a dating advertisement that you refuse to date anybody but a white man or a white woman. Yet it's legal! And it's also the most blatant evidence left that most whites DEMAND another white for their lover and their mate.

As for freedom itself, we Americans are only semi-free. Not slaves, and yet not completely free. Semi-free. Or, just call it "free light", to go along with your Bud Light. Just enough freedom to prevent a revolt, and yet not so much that you're going to advertise your house rental to "whites only". That's the ticket, boys and girls - semi-freedom! To go along with the growing crowds of semi-whites!

It's positively loverly!

Who Is Jose Angel Gutierrez—And What Does He Want?
Jose Angel Gutierrez, [email him] political science professor and former head of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas, Arlington, is a busy man.

Gutierrez was recently in Mexico City at the invitation of the Mexican government to participate in the binational Reconquista jamboree reported in my last column.

The very next day (April 30th, 2004), he was in Kansas City speaking at something called the “Latino Civil Rights Summit.”

There he boasted that:

“We are the future of America. Unlike any prior generation, we now have the critical mass. We’re going to Latinize this country.”

In a puff piece on the conference, Lewis W. Diuguid of the Kansas City Star reported that

“Gutierrez said people from Mexico, Central and South America are not immigrating to the United States. They are simply migrating because this land had been theirs…Hispanics should never put up with others telling them to go back where they came from” [Hispanics will help build future of U.S., April 18th, 2004] [email Diuguid]

That argument, based on absurd historical claims, completely invalidates the existence of the U.S.A.

Gutierrez also discussed Hispanic demographics. He told the audience that half of the Hispanic population is under the age of 21—and that for every Latino who dies, 5 white people die!

Gutierrez has been saying this sort of thing for some time. Speaking in California in 1995, he said:

"The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights. What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot—we will not—and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population." [listen here]

The same themes as Kansas City—a claim to U.S. territory, denial that the U.S. as a legitimate nation-state, exultation over Hispanic demographic growth.

If a white English-speaking American expresses displeasure over the prediction that his ethnic group (if present trends continue) is destined to lose its majority status, he will be called a “racist”.

But Hispanic activists publicly gloat over the increase of their ethnic group. Why isn’t that racist?

Who is Jose Angel Gutierrez ? He’s technically an American citizen, born in Crystal City, Texas in 1944—an example of the great National Question truth that, just because the cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn’t make them biscuits.

He is activist and lawyer, has served as county judge in Texas, and is an author who has penned such classics as A Chicano Manual On How To Handle Gringos. Since his youth, he has been active in the Chicano movement, and was one of the founders of MAYO, the Mexican American Youth Organization.

Texas Democratic Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez made some interesting comments about MAYO, entered in the Congressional Record, April 3rd, 1969:

"MAYO styles itself the embodiment of good and the Anglo-American as the incarnation of evil. That is not merely ridiculous, it is drawing fire from the deepest wellsprings of hate. The San Antonio leader of MAYO, Jose Angel Gutierrez, may think himself something of a hero, but he is, in fact, only a benighted soul if he believes that in the espousal of hatred he will find love. He is simply deluded if he believes that the wearing of fatigues . . . makes his followers revolutionaries . . . One cannot fan the flames of bigotry one moment and expect them to disappear the next.” (Nativist and Racist Movements in the U.S. and their Aftermath, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute, Henry A. Rhodes)

Back then, Gutierrez said

"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

More recently, Gutierrez told The San Antonio Express and News (April 11th, 1969) that the term “Gringo” referred to a bigoted and racist individual or institution. And “kill” just meant the elimination of the political, economic and social foundation of “the Gringo”.

Oh, well—that’s OK then!

Bottom line - Gutierrez wants gringos out of Texas.

Here are excerpts from an interview in 2000:

Q: “If the main goal (of the old Chicano movement) then was to reclaim Aztlan and control all the institutions of civil society, what is the main goal now?”

GUTIERREZ’ answer: “I think it is still the same thing. You hear the Hispanic Republicans talk about the same thing. … this idea has even been co-opted by the Republicans. ….The Hispanic Democrats and Mexican-American Democrats and Tejano Democrats, synonymous in Texas, they are doing the same thing….. ”

Q: “How are Mexican immigrants of today different from Mexican immigrants of decades ago?”

GUTIERREZ:” They are different in one salient aspect…they are keeping their Mexicanness. ..The Mexicanos that are coming today, even though they are political refugees and migrants returning to their homeland, are keeping their Mexicanness ... They are recreating Mexico here. I think they are doing it because of the sheer numbers. …”

(Fort Worth Star Telegram, October 18th, 2000)

Quite so. Isn’t that just what we’ve been saying here at VDARE.com? The interview continues:

Q: What is irredentism [ethnic nationalism], and what evidence do you see that it is happening?

Gutierrez:” The evidence is their display of their Mexicanness. …These folks now are engaged in active political activity in the U.S. which is unprecedented. They are truly binational citizens. It's not uncommon to see undocumented Mexicans protesting in front of INS in downtown Dallas. ….They have also now gotten dual citizenship. … [The] Chicano generation…only wanted to carve out half of [19th-century Mexico]…. These folks want it all. They want to recreate all of Mexico and join all of Mexico into one. And they are going to do that, even if it's just demographically… They are going to have political sovereignty over the Southwest and many parts of the Midwest. ”

Jose Angel Gutierrez is not a madman. Gutierrez is a man who has dedicated his life to a cause.

And he now senses triumph is at hand.

He’s been doing this in George W. Bush’s Texas, at a university for which Bush had ultimate responsibility. (UT is a state university, its Board of Regents is appointed by the Governor).

We ask, not for the first time: What is Bush thinking?

Very good observations, Karl. If present trends were to continue (which they cannot, imo) it would not be long before that too would be an imprisonable offense, a "hate crime."
Discrimination is the foundation of all that can accurately be called civilization.

To reply to the posts on the bottom of page 2, we do still have freedom of speech. What we lack that's even more important though, is the freedom to be heard. As Mencken said, "Freedom of the press [or the TV network, etc.] belongs primarily to those who own one."

I'd say Karl is pretty much right on target.
Semi-free or 'freedom light'. I like the sound of that.
I guess when you mix Glex's 'freedom' and Mine and Fredrik's 'freedom', you get the watered down, bitter tasting brew of 'Freedom Light' - Never filtered!

Glex, your so redundant. Yes, Kill Whitey day does happen. In other parts of the country it is referred to as "Cracker Day". This was the term when I was attending junior high and high school circa 1988-94.
Now, fights did occur. They were rare, but did happen and it was usually 5-10 black youth kicking the crap out of 1 single White kid - usually a long haired heavy metal fan (you know the prime 'White social outcast' that you might find in popular tv shows and hollywood movies).
It was nothing less than widespread racial intimidation and hate crimes.
Don't believe me? Google search 'cracker day'.
Tell me what you find.

This discussion kind of got off target. Glex refused to to answer point blank questions and instead chooses to use the wonderful retort of 'well, you would do that too if you made the laws'.
Sorry. That IS a strawman tactic.

I'd say the definitions of freedom depend on who you are asking.
To me, the founding principles or freedoms of this country have been trampled on by people who manipulate terms and policies for their own ends.
The freedoms established by the founders were by and for White Men only.
It was and still should be a 'White Nation'. Thus, freedoms should not be extended to those who are not European Whites.
The foreign races residing in White nations should not have our freedoms in our lands.
Let them have their freedoms in their own lands.

chrissy,

This is not meant to be a "smart" answer, but if one is that unaware or afraid and in total denial of reality, you risk getting them pretty irrate if you attempt to awaken them.

I say this from past experience. Sleepers of that variety do not appreciate having their pleasant dreams interupted. They even, on ocassion, get right down nasty about it.

:)
Confirmed. They say things like "JUST TRY VOICING YOUR OPINION IN (some ****hole country or other) AND SEE HOW IT'S RECEIVED", i.e. 'we don't mind your having a different opinion just so long as you shut up about it'.

I'd say the definitions of freedom depend on who you are asking.
To me, the founding principles or freedoms of this country have been trampled on by people who manipulate terms and policies for their own ends.
The freedoms established by the founders were by and for White Men only.
It was and still should be a 'White Nation'. Thus, freedoms should not be extended to those who are not European Whites.
The foreign races residing in White nations should not have our freedoms in our lands.
Let them have their freedoms in their own lands.

That's a nice summary.

And you are avoiding the question too. You admit that in your perfect society, there would also be restrictions on freedom. That ain't free, buddy.

Strawman argument. I wouldn't expect anything else from you, of course. I have never talked about a society that would be "mine." I have never said that "my" society would be "perfect."
No, I'm not avoiding the question just because I won't waste time with your evasions. But sure, I'll take some time to explain it to you. We nationalists don't want to live with the dark races. We want separatism. We are not acting like naive libertarians, calling for "racial equality" in the same country, since no such situation has ever existed or could exist. A coin rarely stands on its edge. We want the races to live separately, with no mass immigration of dark races to White countries.

But here we are in a world with Jews dominating the media, as is plainly visible to all except the brainwashed. Like the prime minister of Malaysia said, Jews are using the U.S. as their proxy. Like Arabs living in the Middle East all know, Jews acting with collective interests in mind dominate the West and have the upper hand. We realize that as long as the races step on each other's toes, this will always happen. So we are not looking for "race equality" in the same country, or something like that. You say we are hypocrites? Really. When have we ever said we want freedom of speech for race destroyers? We don't. We are saying, however, that you are a hypocrite when you pretend we are all free to say what we want in our Western societies today.


In your perfect society, no one would be free to choose their wives or husbands if that choice was "race: non-white", would they?

"My" society? My "perfect" society? *L*


So in this society certain freedoms are curtailed. In your perfect society, some freedoms are curtailed. Can you tell me a place were this isn't the case?

No, can you? Did I say there is a place where this isn't the case? I don't remember that having been brought up in the discussion. What we do bring up however is that people now live under the illusion of being free. And you have now admitted that is not the case, and proceeded to simply saying "yeah, so?" in new and exciting ways.


BULL! BULL! BULL! Utter BULL! That simply isn't true. If it is, prove it. If something like this really was true, it would be all over this forum! Why haven't you brought this up before? Because it's pure bull! That's why. Prove me wrong. Give me proof of "kill whitey day".

Blah, blah...close your eyes to reality, as I expected you would. Funny thing is, my ex was a liberal. Yet she was frank about reality. "It would be all over this forum!" Would it? How so? We have brought up many examples of the dark crime wave. This is not the only one, and would we write down them all we wouldn't have time for anything else.
Poor guy, you really went ballistic in that paragraph. Seems you couldn't handle that piece of information at all.


And I'm sure no Swedish white man has ever molested a girl.

Oh, did I say that? No. But these instances are extremely few. The dark races commit many times more crimes in Sweden than do Swedes, even though they are a minority. You are playing this old game: "There are good and bad people of all races!" Point is, there are far less molesters in the White race, and far more molesters among Blacks and Arabs.

A few examples:

More than 70 percent of all rapes in Stockholm in 1988 were committed by non-Swedes. (SCB, the Statistical Central Bureau)
Of the 50 drug dealers arrested at "The Platform" in Stockholm between April and November 1996, 33 were born in Gambia. (Dagens Nyheter, The Daily News, 25/11/96)
Of all the rapes reported to the police 1985-1990, 68 percent were committed by men born in other countries. The numbers do not show how many of the other rapes that were committed by second- or third-generation immigrants. (Brottsförebyggande rådet, The Crime-Prevention Council)
Thore Karlsson at the Karolinian Institute's Department Of Criminal Medicine has investigated 500 deaths caused by violence, and reports that an immigrant is eight times more likely to commit murder with a knife than a Swede. (Hallandsposten, The Halland Post, 26/05/97)
Gypsies make up only 0.26 percent of the population, but they commit 90 percent of the street robberies of old people. That makes them on average 3,400 times more likely to rob old people compared to the rest of the population. (Finansinspektionen, The Finance Inspection, June 1994)
Of the inmates at the so-called Paragraph 12 homes in the Stockholm region (institutions for criminal youths who are too young to go to jail) 60 percent have an immigrant background. (Göteborgsposten, The Gothenburg Post, 20/12/95)
55 percent of the youth criminals arrested in Gothenburg in 1995 had an immigrant background. (Skydd och säkerhet, Protection and Security, no 3 in 1996)


So Swedish racists don't beat up immigrants?

True, it almost never happens. When it does happen, the Jew- and foreigner-owned newspapers, along with the Jew-owned and state-controlled television and radio news, run the story again and again, and it is used as an example of Swedish "racism" in the schools. There was one instance when a Balkanese second-generation immigrant had been beaten by Swedes on a beach, then died from it. It happened in the early nineties and was in the news for a year (!). Two weeks after that had happened, a Swedish woman was stabbed to death by an Arab on a beach, killed by 18 stab wounds. Only one of the nationwide newspapers ran the story, and it was a short paragraph of three sentences and no pictures. Then it disappeared down the memory hole.

It is the same pattern as in the U.S. When the Wichita Massacre happened, did the media show it? Was it brought up as an example of the everyday violence of Blacks against Whites? Of course not. But the dragging in Jasper, Texas was run for at least six months, not only in the U.S. but also in the rest of the West. See, the anti-White media even have to import stories of Whites attacking Blacks, that's how rare it is. And at the same time, the gangrapes of Swedish women continue. The perpetrators are nearly always non-Whites, as Hans Klette's research indicates above.


How's this for clarity? People often threaten what they don't like.

Umm, so?


If you had an organization, [i]you would do the exact same thing!

Reeally? But I do "have" an organization, or rather, I am in one. We don't do the exact same thing. Nowhere near the same thing. In fact, it is members of nationalist parties that are attacked by the dark races, not the other way around, all over Europe. And the media prefer not to write about it. Last year, when the EMU referendum was held in Sweden, members of the two major nationalist parties were attacked and beaten by the darklings. And the media kept silent. If other parties had been attacked, or if members of these nationalist parties would ever attack darklings, the media would bring up the story a decade afterward. That's what Jew-dominated media do.


But really, isn't it freedom for them to do so?

Ah, once again you move farther away from your first position. You pretended that there were no problems for WN organizations, that we are "soaking in freedom." When we bring up examples of how Jews and the dark races operate, you switch between denying it has ever happened and between saying "so what, there's no problem with that!"

It is a perfect example, you are right. Because even though these "all powerfull" jews did everything they could to stop a film they didn't agree with (just like you would, BTW), they couldn't silence him.

Ah, a strawman argument again. You exaggerate what I and others say, in order to make it easier to attack. Sorry, doesn't work. Neither I nor anyone else has said Jews are "all-powerful!" (You really should learn to spell your own language better, btw. But then again, you are a good example of what happens when people go through the degenerating public schools today.) Mel Gibson was able to run his movie, after Jews had attacked it almost weekly for a year, and even stolen an unfinished script to find more things to attack. One guy was able to make one movie that the Jews didn't like -- cuddos to him. That is one movie. Meanwhile, the Jews keep making their anti-White TV shows and movies 24/7, and keep attacking anyone who tries to do the same as Gibson did. Most of the time they succeed. Only with Mel Gibson did they fail. That is not a sign of their not trying: it is a sign of their trying and failing, once. How do you figure that would count in their favor?


And by the way, the movie doesn't say "the Jews killed Jesus," as you write. You are wrong, and you are thereby a perfect example of how Jewish-controlled media have been able to spin this story and make liberals believe it. They vilify the movie as best they can: "Mel Gibson says 'the Jews killed Jesus'!" and you believe it. Tsk, tsk. He was even going to put a Jew-friendly disclaimer at the end of the movie, but changed his mind.

No, once again: I'm afraid the fact that Mel Gibson was able to make one single movie that the Jewish clique in Hollywood didn't like is not any evidence of the Jews not acting collectively for their interests. But believe me, I don't think it's unnatural that they do so: it's natural, it's the way evolution has shaped them. But I'm saying we need to stop them all the same. I'm not saying a virus is evil for killing people either, but I still don't want the virus around me.

And to make it clear to you, since you seem to have a problem with this: the Jews didn't act illegally when they harrassed and vilified Mel Gibson -- well, most of the time they didn't act illegally at least. But that doesn't matter. Attacking us legally isn't any better than attacking us illegally. "Legal" doesn't equal "good" a hundred percent of the time, as you seem to pretend it does.

Glex, are you pretending that as long as something is legal, it can't be criticized? Are you actually pretending that you have never criticized or tried to stop a behavior that has been legal? I don't think so.

you want the freedom to say you hate jews? You got it. You want that freedom, but also free of consequences? Where on earth is that possible?

Not that it is relevant for the discussion, but okay: where on earth? It is free of consequences in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, the United Arab Emirate, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand (especially Thailand!), China, Mongolia, Japan, Brunei ... let's see now ... I think that will do for the time being. It may surprise you to hear, but I don't lack first-hand information from the Gulf. People there are perfectly aware of what the Jews have done to the West. And they all know that the invasion of Iraq was invented by the neocons, which are mostly Jews who did it for Israeli interests, as they stated as early as in 1998 when they wrote down their plans.

And now, a similar question: where is it free of consequences to say you hate Whites? Why, in the United States, in Canada, in New Zeeland, in Australia, in Britain, in Ireland, in Iceland, in Norway, in Sweden, in Finland, in Denmark, in Germany, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in France, in Spain, in Portugal, in Italy, in Switzerland, in Austria....

Not in Russia, though. They'd beat you to a pulp if you said that. Outside the West the world is as a rule nationalistic. That is why we Whites have the sympathy of Arabs living in the Middle East, for example (whereas those living in the West, parasites as they are, become MTV-ized in a generation or two and behave just like the Blacks).

See, anti-nationalists like you are in the minority in this world, Glex. Learn it, live it, love it.


It's a bad law. Everyone should be free to associate/disassociate with anyone they want.

You agree voluntary segregation should be legal? Fantastic. We are making progress. Then I suppose you are willing to support an organization that tries to make that a reality?
Or was it just something you wrote to avoid getting stuck in a position that is hard to defend? Would you support an organization that wants to keep voluntary segregation illegal, such as the NAACP? If yes, then you are a hypocrite.


Well there you go. United States is the ONLY COUNTRY where the right to free speech still exists. I rest my case.

Aw, chucks, that's cute, using my expressions. I'm almost touched by the affection. :)
The United States is the only country where something like the First Amendment exists. So it is the only country where freedom of speech exists in the law officially. In other places, it doesn't even exist officially.

Freedom of speech -- an entirely White invention, just like political freedom. You ask if I would want political freedom in "my" society? Yes, but only with Whites in it. Not with the dark races. It cannot exist when you have many races in the same country, since nationalism is ever-present in human behavior, which leads to the races combatting each other and competing for power. And Whites are hurt badly by that, since we are the most civil, the least nationalist, the most individualistic. (Libertarianism, equality before the law, the corporation as a separate entity; all individualistic, White inventions. Not to mention the abolition of slavery, the philosophical underpinnings of which were invented only in the West.)



Hate speech isn't "I hate all jews". It's "Kill all jews because they are jews". Where in the world is freedom of speech defined as "anything goes, including incitement to murder?"

Incitement to murder goes in the West -- incitement to murder of Whites. Didn't you know that? If Blacks shout "Kill Whitey!" in the school hallway and proceed to attack Whites, nothing is done about it. And a state-sponsored anti-White organization in Sweden has a Korean member who wrote an article advocating the extermination of all Whites. Nothing was done about that, it's perfectly legal -- as long as you advocate extermination of Whites, not the other races.

Ever heard about Morgenthau? Roosevelt's Jewish advisor who advocated the extermination of all Germans, and even wrote a book about it. Nothing illegal about that, nothing wrong: Roosevelt kept him as an advisor, and noone thought it bad in any way. And you certainly don't read about it in your school history books, do you?



Well, you wouldn't, would you? That really is the point. You don't want freedom, you want your kind of freedom.

Ah, once again: we are not advocating a "color-blind" society. We are not advocating that all races live in one country with equality before the law. We are pointing out, however, that it is a lie that we would have equality in the West today, and an illusion that Whites would be free. We want the separation of the races, as we know that there will always be strife when we live together. Have we White Nationalists ever claimed anything else? I don't think so.

What we are saying is: the illusion of freedom for all races in the West today is deadly. We need to change that.



In your perfect society,

Strawman once again: never said it would be "perfect." But it's efficient to accuse your opponent of saying his idea for a society is perfect, as everybody will agree there is no perfect society. That way, your opponent will appear dishonest and stupid.

See here Glex, how you have been conditioned to always exaggerate and distort what nationalists say? You don't know half of my opinions, and yet you attack them. Whereas I have probably heard any opinion you may put forward, again and again.


would a black man be "free" to date a white woman? Would a black man even be free to exist? No? Then you don't want freedom.

No, a Black would not be allowed to defile the White race. The Black man would be free to exist in his own country, however, with no help from the White race: there he can kill his own to his heart's content, like he does in Africa, which is the scene for more than half of all armed conflicts in the world today. (Like an Indian girl who has lived in South Africa and Zimbabwe told me, "I can't believe how you Swedes are destroying your country!" She said this watching a fat Negro woman cross the street. She felt sad for us, and worried, for she had seen what Blacks do to themselves and others when they are in power.)

So you see, I don't want a hundred percent freedom, and never said I do. I'm not a libertarian -- the mere thought of it is an insult. Noone in this thread has called for a hundred percent freedom. We are saying, however, that the illusion of freedom is deadly, as it keeps Whites from acting.

How could you misunderstand that? I thought the thread started was pretty obvious about it.

Dont waste too much time on glex Fred, that is "casting pearls before swine" as the Preacher saith.

For example, I gobbled up that essay Alex posted by you the other day-- loved it! but I wouldnt waste 60 seconds listening to you rebut his liberterian claptrap. Yawn. Spend your talent on something we can enjoy.

For the record Glex, one or the other Scandanavian nation probably has the lowest crime rate in the entire western world, so any attention to that will only weaken your already tepid broth of an argument. If you took a look at what crime they do have it's probably from a bunch of "refugees" whether they are Bantus or Pals or even White Croats like the guy who stabbed the politician.

Scandanavia is a unique ecosystem with highly evolved fauna including the indigeonous human inhabitants. It should be protected.

Dont waste too much time on glex Fred, that is "casting pearls before swine" as the Preacher saith.

*S* Well, just trying to give the guy a chance. But you're probably right.

For example, I gobbled up that essay Alex posted by you the other day-- loved it!

Thanks! I'll be keeping an eye open for the singer there, she really was original. Rare to see that nowadays.
And though her music was inspired by the Carpathians and their clothes reminded the viewer of LOTR, she is a devoted Christian. (Giving you that one for free; score one for Christianity!)

Yes, Scandinavia does have a low crime rate, though not as extremely low as it used to be before the dark tide. Finland has the lowest crime rate now, being the most White of the Nordic countries, and it manages this even though it has fewer police officers in proportion to the population than any other Western country.

Kill Whitey day does happen. In other parts of the country it is referred to as "Cracker Day". This was the term when I was attending junior high and high school circa 1988-94.
Really? I never saw a mention of this prior to April of this year. How about a source, if it's been around since the 80's?

Now, fights did occur. They were rare, but did happen and it was usually 5-10 black youth kicking the crap out of 1 single White kid
How does that relate to an entire day set aside to kill whites?

Don't believe me? Google search 'cracker day'.
Tell me what you find.
OK, here is what I found.
1. SPILSBY LIONS CHRISTMAS CRACKER DAY- An event in the UK centered around singing Christmas carols.
2. Racial hit concerns Valley area parents- Regarding two blacks who passed a note. Two blacks. One note. No one beat up. No crackers killed. Hardly a far reaching and ever present intimidation of the while child, is it? If it was as widespread as you make it out to be, wouldn't I see it all over the news? Wouldn't I see it all over this board? This thread is the first I've heard of it, and yet something this explosive is signature worthy! Why isn't it more popular here?
3. BASF Steam Cracker Day- A PDF file from the BASF company regarding petrochemicals.
4-6. Stories about crackers the foodstuff.
7. Stormfront talking about this. They link to the above article.

So there you go. Two hits in the 10 pages I looked through. Kill Whitey day is totally bogus. Two black kids deciding to intimidate a few people they don't like, and you white nationalists blow it up to megolithic proportions. Never mind the facts, we got propaganda to shovel!

Derrick, asking me to look it up on Google was really stupid. You know that expression lawyers use? "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to." Good advice.

Seems like Glex is pretending to focus on Kill Whitey Day since he knows few if any newspapers will write about it, so he can proclaim "You have no proof!" and avoid talking about the Black-on-White crime statistics that do exist. Well, there is proof. I know at least four Americans who have testified about it happening, and there would probably be more if I had taken the time to ask around.

And Glex is once again trying to exaggerate his opponent's statement: pretending here that the day would be about actually killing Whites, when he knows, as we have written, that it is about beating up Whites.

In Swedish schools there is no day named like this, yet, but Whites are being beaten up regularly. I have seen this both as a student and as a temp teacher. Made me glad I'm not studying to become a teacher; they are working in a hellhole.

Ah, a strawman argument again. You exaggerate what I and others say, in order to make it easier to attack. Sorry, doesn't work. Neither I nor anyone else has said Jews are "all-powerful!" (You really should learn to spell your own language better, btw.

And you really should learn that to point out someone's typo is the pettiest of arguments, btw. At any rate, the jews are all powerful. How can they be otherwise? They managed to turn the best people in the world, Aryans, into race-mixing cowards in 50 years! Wow! Are you saying that isn't powerful?


But then again, you are a good example of what happens when people go through the degenerating public schools today.)
When did I go to public school Fred? Did I go to a public school at all? Do you understand you stupid such assumptions look?

Mel Gibson was able to run his movie, after Jews had attacked it almost weekly for a year, and even stolen an unfinished script to find more things to attack. One guy was able to make one movie that the Jews didn't like -- cuddos to him.
My point is two-fold. One, it can be done. It may be difficult, but it is possible. So stop whining about how "we aren't free to do so", because you obviously are. Two, jews attacked the film because they saw it as attacking them. Would you not do the same thing in their shoes? Of course you would. If you saw a film that promoted race mixing, you'd protest it too. Just like they do! Although, when jews do that it's evil. When you do that, it's good. You'll have to explain why to me.


That is one movie. Meanwhile, the Jews keep making their anti-White TV shows and movies 24/7, and keep attacking anyone who tries to do the same as Gibson did. Most of the time they succeed. Only with Mel Gibson did they fail. That is not a sign of their not trying: it is a sign of their trying and failing, once. How do you figure that would count in their favor?
It's a sign that they aren't unstoppable. It's a sign that the only things holding back you strong Aryans is yourselves. Obviously it's possible to beat the jews, but it's easier to whine on a messageboard that actually do something.


And by the way, the movie doesn't say "the Jews killed Jesus," as you write. You are wrong, and you are thereby a perfect example of how Jewish-controlled media have been able to spin this story and make liberals believe it. They vilify the movie as best they can: "Mel Gibson says 'the Jews killed Jesus'!" and you believe it. Tsk, tsk. He was even going to put a Jew-friendly disclaimer at the end of the movie, but changed his mind.
I know what the movie said. I read this forum, don't I? They were concerned about the "it be on us and our children" line. (I'm not a Christian, so if that's wrong, someone correct me). Not being a religious person, I think they were overreacting. But I have no problem with the act of protesting they did. Why do you?

No, once again: I'm afraid the fact that Mel Gibson was able to make one single movie that the Jewish clique in Hollywood didn't like is not any evidence of the Jews not acting collectively for their interests.
I never stated that jews don't act in their interests. What I said is that if you had the power, you'd act in your interests as well. The only reason you don't like jews doing it is because they are better at it.

And to make it clear to you, since you seem to have a problem with this: the Jews didn't act illegally when they harrassed and vilified Mel Gibson -- well, most of the time they didn't act illegally at least. But that doesn't matter. Attacking us legally isn't any better than attacking us illegally. "Legal" doesn't equal "good" a hundred percent of the time, as you seem to pretend it does.
No, I never said or pretended any such thing. If a pro-jewish movie was about to open, you would harass and villify as well. That's what I don't get. You would do the exact same things the jews do, if only you could. "Day of the rope", anyone? "Vertical expulsion", perhaps?


Not that it is relevant for the discussion, but okay: where on earth? It is free of consequences in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, the United Arab Emirate, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bhutan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand (especially Thailand!), China, Mongolia, Japan, Brunei .You can stand on the street corners of those countries and scream "Death to the jews?" No doubt. Can you stand on that same street corner and scream "Mohammad enjoyed being buggered?" No? Then I guess they aren't any freer then anyone else huh? Just free about different things.



Not in Russia, though. They'd beat you to a pulp if you said that.
Again, you are confusing social law with actual law.

See, anti-nationalists like you are in the minority in this world, Glex. Learn it, live it, love it.
Well, if I'm in the minority, I must be wrong! Only really popular concepts are ever correct.

You agree voluntary segregation should be legal? Fantastic. We are making progress. Then I suppose you are willing to support an organization that tries to make that a reality?
Yes, go ahead an separate. All you want. You can have your own membership clubs, etc. But here is the kicker. Are you willing to afford other races the same courtesy? All jewish companies? All black companies? Are you wiling to allow that? No? Why not?


Aw, chucks, that's cute, using my expressions. I'm almost touched by the affection. :)
It was just so easy!

The United States is the only country where something like the First Amendment exists. So it is the only country where freedom of speech exists in the law officially. In other places, it doesn't even exist officially.
I live in this country. I don't care about others. The original question of this thread was "What to say to people that America isn't free". You bringing up other countries just bolsters my argument.

Freedom of speech -- an entirely White invention, just like political freedom. You ask if I would want political freedom in "my" society? Yes, but only with Whites in it. Not with the dark races.
You really don't see the hypocrisy here, do you? Political freedom in your society where everyone just happens to agree with you! You honestly think that is freedom?

It cannot exist when you have many races in the same country,
You already said it DOES exist in America! You yourself said it!

since nationalism is ever-present in human behavior,
It can't be that present. You white nationalists are a tiny minority in America.

Not to mention the abolition of slavery, the philosophical underpinnings of which were invented only in the West.)
I'm glad you didn't mention it, otherwise you'd have to point out that whites originally enslaved those they later freed. Is slavery a philosophical underpinning invented in the west?



Incitement to murder goes in the West -- incitement to murder of Whites. Didn't you know that? If Blacks shout "Kill Whitey!" in the school hallway and proceed to attack Whites, nothing is done about it.
I'm calling your bluff here. Prove that this happens. Since it happens so often, give me just the top five examples of this happening. Nothing big, just the top five.

And a state-sponsored anti-White organization in Sweden has a Korean member who wrote an article advocating the extermination of all Whites. Nothing was done about that, it's perfectly legal -- as long as you advocate extermination of Whites, not the other races.
That's not freedom of speech? But honestly, you should come to America. That is the topic at hand, after al.


Ah, once again: we are not advocating a "color-blind" society. We are not advocating that all races live in one country with equality before the law. We are pointing out, however, that it is a lie that we would have equality in the West today, and an illusion that Whites would be free. We want the separation of the races, as we know that there will always be strife when we live together. Have we White Nationalists ever claimed anything else? I don't think so.
I disagree. I think there will be strife in any society, even a monoracial one.

What we are saying is: the illusion of freedom for all races in the West today is deadly. We need to change that.
I really don't see it as illusory. We are both practicing our freedom on this very board. This is no illusion. It's actually happening.


See here Glex, how you have been conditioned to always exaggerate and distort what nationalists say? You don't know half of my opinions, and yet you attack them. Whereas I have probably heard any opinion you may put forward, again and again.
Yes, my "conditioning" is really showing, isn't it? How are you free from your respective conditioning? You think your 'the races should be separate' motif is original? I've seen it here a million times! And always the same arguments.



No, a Black would not be allowed to defile the White race.
Then that isn't freedom. Shouldn't a white woman be FREE to choose?

So you see, I don't want a hundred percent freedom, and never said I do. I'm not a libertarian -- the mere thought of it is an insult.
Surely you've been called worse!

Noone in this thread has called for a hundred percent freedom. We are saying, however, that the illusion of freedom is deadly, as it keeps Whites from acting.
And I'm saying two things. One, that the freedom isn't illusory. It's real. We are using it now. If you are going to let social convention stop you from using it, it's your own damn fault. Two, you're right, you aren't calling for 100% freedom. You are calling a substantial curtailment of freedom- just one that you agree with.

In 1967 and 1968, he taught an experimental class at Garfield High School, attempting to stem the disturbing dropout rate at the predominantly black school. And if Smith walked the walk, the Smith children did too, attending mostly black Meany Junior High and Garfield High during the worst of the 1960s troubles. They were harassed, shaken down, kicked, driven to tears, and survived a teenage environment where Jared remembered a “kill whitey day.”



http://www.historylink.org/_output.cfm?file_id=4300

There, Glex.

And you really should learn that to point out someone's typo is the pettiest of arguments, btw. At any rate, the jews are all powerful. How can they be otherwise? They managed to turn the best people in the world, Aryans, into race-mixing cowards in 50 years! Wow! Are you saying that isn't powerful?


When did I go to public school Fred? Did I go to a public school at all? Do you understand you stupid such assumptions look?


My point is two-fold. One, it can be done. It may be difficult, but it is possible. So stop whining about how "we aren't free to do so", because you obviously are. Two, jews attacked the film because they saw it as attacking them. Would you not do the same thing in their shoes? Of course you would. If you saw a film that promoted race mixing, you'd protest it too. Just like they do! Although, when jews do that it's evil. When you do that, it's good. You'll have to explain why to me.



It's a sign that they aren't unstoppable. It's a sign that the only things holding back you strong Aryans is yourselves. Obviously it's possible to beat the jews, but it's easier to whine on a messageboard that actually do something.



I know what the movie said. I read this forum, don't I? They were concerned about the "it be on us and our children" line. (I'm not a Christian, so if that's wrong, someone correct me). Not being a religious person, I think they were overreacting. But I have no problem with the act of protesting they did. Why do you?


I never stated that jews don't act in their interests. What I said is that if you had the power, you'd act in your interests as well. The only reason you don't like jews doing it is because they are better at it.


No, I never said or pretended any such thing. If a pro-jewish movie was about to open, you would harass and villify as well. That's what I don't get. You would do the exact same things the jews do, if only you could. "Day of the rope", anyone? "Vertical expulsion", perhaps?

You can stand on the street corners of those countries and scream "Death to the jews?" No doubt. Can you stand on that same street corner and scream "Mohammad enjoyed being buggered?" No? Then I guess they aren't any freer then anyone else huh? Just free about different things.



Again, you are confusing social law with actual law.

Well, if I'm in the minority, I must be wrong! Only really popular concepts are ever correct.
The mind of the libertarian fantasist at work. Everything is resolved by the "invisible hand" and the "magic of the marketplace". Real human history is the conflict of races and the civilizations and cultures created by those races. "Freedom", therefore has no meaning outside the context of specific peoples and their progress, or lack of it. Remember that slavery was once a universal human institution and the impetus to abolish it arose only in the West; it is still practiced in parts of Africa today. You say you are for freedom of association. There is no hope for restoration of freedom of association in commerce within the existing political system. This would entail the repeal of the many "civil rights" laws at all levels of government. Try running for Congress on that platform and see how far you get. You would instantly be denounced as a "white racist".

Glex is wrong. It's not just social convention that discriminates against WNs it is law. Here's the case you need to read Glexie: "US vs National Alliance." 501c3 income tax exemption not allowed for naughty White racists. We cant "educate" people on race. That's something only 501c3s like SPLC, ADL or NAACP can do, since they're all run by Jews. take a look at FN 23, that the same result would have occured if NA had tried to organize as a "fraternal society" (501c8) the result would have been the same-- no dice. So in fact, we CANT have exclusive membership clubs" on the same legal and tax terms as everybody else.

I'd give you the citation, but why dont you impress us all with proof of your ability to look up and confirm the "law" you quote so confidently, by providing it to us instead. I will give you the weekend to do so and confirm your ability or lack of it for all to see when I return.

You talk a big talk, you're pretty confident Glex, arent you? Check your premises they may be mistaken.

Glex,
You ignore many points that you have no answer to. Your common theme is still 'well, you would curtail others freedoms to if you had the chance'...or 'you would do the same' or the best yet 'we do have freedom, we are practicing it right now!'

I will tell you point blank that yes, we have the "freedom" to debate racial and jewish questions on an internet web board (when it is not being hacked by opponents and shut down).

But, you keep failing to get the point that the founding principles or 'freedoms' guranteed to us in the US Bill of Rights and the Constitution DO NOT extend to White Americans interests if they do not adhere to the current status quo of multiculturalism, jewish indoctrination, minority rights and putting forth racial monority interests before those of White Americans.

The irony in all this is that these 'freedoms' and principles were designed and articulated by Whites for Whites!
If you would have said to Thomas Jefferson in 1776 or John Marshall in 1803 or Abe Lincoln in 1863 that these freedoms should be extended to nonwhite Americans they would have laughed you out the door.

The mistake we made (and libertarians like yourself continue to make) is that we believed that Aryan freedoms can be extended to biological and cultural competitors like the nonwhites in OUR OWN ARYAN LANDS!

Do you comprehend this?

I guess this whole question got ahead of itself because evidently Glex and folks of his persuasion do not adhere to the factual premise that the earth's human races are NOT equal. They are not equal in intelligence, athletic ability, culture, values, and abilities to transform their societies.
This fact is the scientific and moral basis for keeping the races ,and thus, their respective lands free from others. The resulting mixing of peoples produces enormous clashes of civilizations and thus, ruin for all involved.
To think that Aryan freedoms can extend to non-Aryans in Aryan lands is nothing short of ludicrous!

Our current freedoms are nothign but shells of what they once were. Not because of popular whims of the day, but because they are enforced by the lagal system differently.
See AE's example of US v. National Alliance

I think Glex knows full well that in theory, freedoms do still exist. He as well knows that in practice and enforcement they are not adhered to blindly and equally by the justice system or the law.
Freedoms and laws are words on pieces of paper. Nothing more really without the physical ability to enforce and back up these freedoms and/or laws.
The physical enforcement of specific freedoms does not extend equally for Aryan Whites because of the quest to liquidate our financial, cultural and genetic integrity in our own countries by biological competition.

If any of this resonates with you, please let us know. If you still want to put your faith in the blind eye of racial equality and thus, equality of freedoms practiced by those people, be my guest. But, you are only fooling yourself and ignoring facts for the conveinant lies of beliefs.

As for 'Cracker Day'. I am surprised that there exist so few hits of the blatant racial intimidation and hatred of this common topic.
I can 100% assure you my friend that thsi does occur all over America to this day. It is usually the last day of school before Xmas break the official last day of school in urban public schools where 'Cracker day' occurs.
Sure, it is mostly bluster on the part of young negroids wishing to be tough and impress their white hating peers, but it still happens and is covered up by the school boards and local media outlets because it shows the reality of nonwhite hatred of whites that is so common to this day.

Funny, isn't it? Nonwhites have the carte blance freedom to hate Whites, but Whites do not have the FREEDOM to actively 'hate' nonwhites.
Cracker day did happen at my school and it happens at public schools all over this country.

The basic jist is that our freedoms are illusionary. They exist on paper for 'all' , but are only enforced for a specific agenda and ideal in mind:
Multiculturalism and the end of White hedgemony in White Lands.

Do you deny this fact?

Sh*tty employers will be the first to tell you that you're free to look for another job. In sh*tty countries they say the same thing.

Glexie has had three days to reply to my post about US v National Alliance as proof of deliberate, open discrimination by the government against the exercise of rights of free association by Whites. He has not done so. He has come here and lectured and talked shit about things of which he knows a little but not enough.
I had no idea you missed me so much, AE! It's nice to be needed. Of course, I could point out the numerous times other people here have failed to reply to my posts, like Steve B has failed to reply in the Opposition thread, and longer than three days, at that. But that would be kind of petty, wouldn't it?

Anyway, doubtless you thought your little example of the NA was truly a show stopper.

It isn't. Not even close.

You are smart enough to see the difference between being allowed free speech, and having the government giving you tax breaks to do so. The government isn't stopping me from doing something simply by not making it tax free.

The NA's failure to get a government tax sanction is not only unsurprising, it is completely off topic. Them not having tax exempt status does nothing to mitigate their freedom of speech, and you know it. Surprisingly lame argument, AE.

Again Glex you show your ignorance. Usually when one type of folks are denied the same "rights and privileges" of another group, that offends a little thing called the 14th amendment equal protection clause. The fact is pro-White Whites are denied the same rights and privileges as other and equal protection of law and the US v National Alliance case is an undeniable star in that firmament.

You failed to get the cite, didnt you Glex? If you know so much about law you could at least uncover the citation and show that you read the case before you passed judgment on it. No: you didnt read the case did you? You just said I was lame because it doesnt accord with your prejudiced idea that WN is "lame" or erroneous or whatever.

No, I challenged you to read the case and provide some confirmation by publically noting the citation. If you knew how to look up the law you say you know so well you could have done that. If you were a skilled researcher you could have done that. So your'e either neither or just lazy or a liar. I dont really care.

See if you can come back with that citation you mouthy knowitall Glex.

Did I mention that White-racist churches have often suffered the same fate as NA, but dont have the resources to waste on trying to overturn this law when the power relationships are what they are?

14th amendment: rammed through Congress at the end of the Civil War. Unused until Jews took over the country in the 30s, overused since the sixties for the benefit of everybody but us.

You have one consolation Glex and that is you are a bootlicker for those who are temporarily in charge. We shall see how long that lasts. The lack of freedom you say doesnt affect us may someday affect you.

In case you'd like to have it explained to you Glex why being denied tax breaks on a basis different from others is in fact unlawful discrimination under the equal protection clause, I refer you to Professor Richard Epstein of University of Chicago. He has plenty of books exploring the topic, and since you as a self promoted expert on law know how to find your local law library, you can educate yourself accordingly.

If you are a liberterian as you have previously suggested maybe you know that name. Or perhaps you are ignorant of economics as well.

It doesnt matter. You are welcome to check it out and report back here if you find I am wrong about Professor Epstein on tax breaks and equal protection.

That is, if you dont mind quoting a Jew has to say on the subject... or are you some kind of wacky antisemite Glex? LOL

I could point out the numerous times other people here have failed to reply to my posts, like Steve B has failed to reply in the Opposition thread, and longer than three days, at that. But that would be kind of petty, wouldn't it?

Unless the mood really strikes me Glex, I usually refrain from replying to you for the simple reason that your replies usually have no relevance or logic to what preceded it and your inferences and conclusions never follow the premises or evidence.

I was just thanking gawd how free I was... Then I read about this poor White schmoe and thought, gee, that guy could be me:

--------

I am going to trial for ethnic intimidation

Today was my fourth arrainment and the Detroit prosecuter offered me a plea of "attempt at ethnic intimidation." That is a one-year misdemeanor. I could not get a guarrantee of no jail time so I refused the plea. This Friday is my next date.

The jackass that was my court appointed attorney wanted me to take the deal. The fool has yet to sit down with me and get my side. He never returned any of my calls. The guy just wants to collect a check without working for it. I will be hiring my own attorney for the trial.

I wish many of you were there at the arrainment at room 202 of the Detroit Recorders Court. The only other white guy there being arrained was in tears. He was crying at how the Detroit's court was railroading him into a bad sentence. His charge was a white collar crime and the judge in Detroit wanted him to serve hard time....

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=134145

-----
Round and round she goes. Where she stops, nobody knows...



http://www.walkervilletimes.com/ruins-2.jpg
http://www.constantcenter.com/images/ludacris.jpg

Unless the mood really strikes me Glex, I usually refrain from replying to you for the simple reason that your replies usually have no relevance or logic to what preceded it and your inferences and conclusions never follow the premises or evidence.
Steve, My point was that it is petty for AE to decry my not responding in a timely manner, when plenty of others do exactly the same thing. Did it ever occur to AE that I didn't respond to him for the same reason you didn't respond to me?

Again Glex you show your ignorance. Usually when one type of folks are denied the same "rights and privileges" of another group, that offends a little thing called the 14th amendment equal protection clause. The fact is pro-White Whites are denied the same rights and privileges as other and equal protection of law and the US v National Alliance case is an undeniable star in that firmament.
Calm down AE. No need to get upset.

You can be as precise as you'd like, but your argument is still off topic. Denying a group tax free status does not deny there freedom of speech. It really is that simple. Bring up 14th amendment, Commerce clause, res ispo locutor, anything you want. You're still off topic.

You failed to get the cite, didnt you Glex? If you know so much about law you could at least uncover the citation and show that you read the case before you passed judgment on it. No: you didnt read the case did you?
Neither did you, counselor. To pretend that you did is absurd. You, at best read a summery of the topic. That's not research, Mr. Mason.


You just said I was lame because it doesnt accord with your prejudiced idea that WN is "lame" or erroneous or whatever.
No, I said it because it really was a lame attempt by you. I don't know what happened, but the quality of your posts has really declined since after my vacation. Witness your last statement: “or whatever”. When is the last time you ended a sentence with “or whatever”?

If you knew how to look up the law you say you know so well you could have done that.
I said I know the law? Point out in which post I said that.

If you were a skilled researcher you could have done that.
Oh, I'm clearly not a good researcher. After all, “Kill Whitey” day has been going on across this country every year for over 50 years, and I can only find 1 citation of it anywhere.

So your'e either neither or just lazy or a liar. I dont really care.
And yet you keep responding to me.

Talmudic reasoning Glex, sure you arent a Jew? Maybe just a Jew making typical Jewish lies.

Oh I've read the case and when I get damn well and ready I'll copy it out and post pertinent sections here. You can then ignore another point proven and skip on to some more obfuscatory sophistry to try and distract.

I appreciate you illustrating for the audience what it will look like when a person wins a point of argument with the Jews. They bluster and lie and distract and do anything but concede the point that has been made.

Talmudic reasoning Glex, sure you arent a Jew? Maybe just a Jew making typical Jewish lies.

Oh I've read the case and when I get damn well and ready I'll copy it out and post pertinent sections here. You can then ignore another point proven and skip on to some more obfuscatory sophistry to try and distract.

I appreciate you illustrating for the audience what it will look like when a person wins a point of argument with the Jews. They bluster and lie and distract and do anything but concede the point that has been made.
Of course. I'm a jew. A "randoid" A libertarian. A "sophist". I'm anything you can label me. Yawn. And now I'm a jew again. You are a one trick pony, AE. And a lame one at that.

Well, AE, you can't wimp out by pulling the old "you must be a jew" card. You didn't read anything, as evidenced by the fact you can only “quote relevant texts when you are ready”. Riiiiiiight! When you are ready. AE, you simply aren't fooling anyone. You can't make the point that tax free status is needed for free speech. No one can really, except perhaps, the National Endowment for the Arts. You aren't an NEA supporter, are you? Hey! He's an NEA-oid! We labeled him, so now we can dismiss him!

Your little riff about the NA not being free because they have to pay taxes is lame. It just doesn't fly. And calling me a jew doesn't make it so. Its a weak attempt to smear me, AE. But it sure beats actually arguing your point, eh?

yep, labels provide a useful shorthand in society. if we met I imagine a few others would come to mind too like nerd, geek, and stinker. mercifully we shall not.

I read the case and I'll dig it out, when I am damn good and ready. Itz coming Glexie so keep on yipping your yap, it will only build the tension until I lay it on you and you run scurrying out from under the falling weight of the truth like a cockroach running from light.

hey Glexie are you watching? I'm going to parcel this out slow. Glex says US is free. Glex says pro-Whites arent discriminated against. I say they are. I offer proof. Glex says I havent read the proof. Glex lies. here it is:

National Alliance v US. 710 F2d 868 (1983)

more to follow

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

NATIONAL ALLIANCE, Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES of America, et al.
NATIONAL ALLIANCE
v.
UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellants.

Nos. 81-1899, 81-1900.

Argued June 2, 1982.
Decided June 28, 1983.


After the IRS issued final adverse determination letter with respect to organization's application for tax-exempt status as "educational" institution, organization sought declaratory judgment. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Oliver Gasch, J., entered judgment vacating the IRS determination that organization was not entitled to tax exemption and remanded matter to the IRS for further proceedings. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals, Fairchild, Senior Circuit Judge, sitting by designation, held that: (1) organization which published monthly newsletter and membership bulletin, organized lectures and meetings, issued occasional leaflets, and distributed books, all for stated purpose of arousing in white Americans of European ancestry an understanding of and pride in their racial and cultural heritage and awareness of present dangers to that heritage was not entitled to tax-exempt status as "educational" institution under section 501(c)(3), in view of facts that advocacy publications of organization were merely emotional and provided no degree of intellectually appealing exposition or development of or foundation for views advocated, and (2) though advocacy publications and presentations were entitled to First Amendment protection, that fact alone did not require construction of term "educational," within tax-exempt-status provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, to embrace every continuing dissemination of views.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for United States, et al. John F. Murray, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for United States.

Janet L. McDavid, with whom Sara-Ann Determan and Arthur B. Spitzer, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for Nat. Alliance. Joseph M. Hassett, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for Nat. Alliance.

Paul S. Berger, Walter J. Rockler, and Thomas C. Spring, Washington, D.C., were on brief for amici curiae American Jewish Congress, et al., urging reversal with directions to dismiss.

Even under the most minimal requirement of a rational development of a point of view, National Alliance's materials fall short. The publications before us purport to state demonstrable facts--such as the occurrence of violent acts, perpetrated by black persons, the presence of Jews in important positions, and other events consistent with National Alliance themes. The real gap is in reasoning from the purported facts to the views advocated; there is no more than suggestion that the few "facts" presented in each issue of Attack! justify its sweeping pronouncements about the common traits of non-whites and Jews or the need for their violent removal from society. It is the fact that there is no reasoned development of the conclusions which removes it from any definition of "educational" conceivably intended by Congress. The material may express the emotions felt by a number of people, but it cannot reasonably be considered intellectual exposition....

...
The exposition of propositions the correctness of which is readily demonstrable is doubtless educational. As the truth of the view asserted becomes less and less demonstrable, however, "instruction" or "education" must, we think, require more than mere assertion and repetition.

Denial of National Alliance's application for tax-exempt status might arguably flow from a source separate from the question of the organization's educational nature: National Alliance restricts membership on the basis of race. While the organization's articles of incorporation prohibit members, this prohibition practically extends only to members as shareholders in the corporation. National Alliance actively solicits individuals to become participating members in sponsored activities through its publications. (J.A. 40, 326-408). National Alliance expressly restricts such membership to "persons of European race." In McGlottan V Connaly, 338 F Supp 448, a three-judge court held that the Secretary of the Treasury could not grant tax-exempt status to a fraternal organization that denied membership to non-white.

Pilate asked Jesus, who was condemned in a trial fixed by a gaggle of lying Jews, "Quod est veritas?" The Greeks know before Christ the answer to that and said frankly: truth is what the powerful want it to be. For your second humiliating homework assignment Glexie, you may come back and inform us of the name of the Greek philospher associated with that proposition.

For now this is VNNF Edumactor AE signing off.

Very impressive. Although all you had to do was post the link:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publications/pdf/chap2.pdf

At any rate, while you have successfully proved, yet again, that the National Alliance did indeed not get tax free status, you failed to mention how that fact stops them from speaking. Unless you are arguing that only tax exempt corporations can have free speech, all you've done is prove that an unpopular organization still has to pay taxes on its office supplies.

Their tax bill notwithstanding, the NA still has freedom of speech.

Glex said: "Bullshirt. Urban legend. Point out to me where a student has said something not kosher and had their grades dropped because of it."

You might want to read a book called "The Shadow University" by Alan Kors, which details how students have suffered grade reductions based - not on poor academics - but for expressing politically-incorrect views in their classroom assignments that went against those held by the instructor. It's a fascinating exposure of America's leftist-controlled universities, and a book well worth reading.

It's a Free Country. Until the jailer actually gags you, you can still speak. You have total freedom to move about within the constraints of the prison.
Thus, hair-splitting Judeophilic nerd, Glex, wins another argument!
Has he ever lost one?
Never!
Just ask him.

Very impressive. Although all you had to do was post the link:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publications/pdf/chap2.pdf

At any rate, while you have successfully proved, yet again, that the National Alliance did indeed not get tax free status, you failed to mention how that fact stops them from speaking. Unless you are arguing that only tax exempt corporations can have free speech, all you've done is prove that an unpopular organization still has to pay taxes on its office supplies.

Their tax bill notwithstanding, the NA still has freedom of speech.

LOL once I give you the quote you got it off google huh, and then pretend you had it all along? You're the pathetic one dude. That is so childish I have to laugh.

As for the argument, mine is simple enough. There are plenty of non-White and Jew outfits out there posing as churches and educational groups that are no more educational than NA nor any more churchly than Cosmotheist whatever, but they get a pass and pro-White NA didnt. Same laws, different applications based only upon the race of the discriminated party: Whites. Hence denial of Equal protection. That's actually a 14th and 5th amendment issue not first. but you dont know the difference do you? "yes AE I am out of my depth. You have spanked me and I would like another sir."

Hey Glex have you heard the history of Jewish tax farming in Poland? That will be your homework lesson number three. For now, you cant answer number 2 any better than number 1 huh? For a know it all, who presumes to come here and lecture us, you seem to have had a pretty deficient education. LOL

....... you failed to mention how that fact stops them from speaking. Unless you are arguing that only tax exempt corporations can have free speech, all you've done is prove that an unpopular organization still has to pay taxes on its office supplies....Their tax bill notwithstanding, the NA still has freedom of speech.

LOL, wtf are you talking about here? Taxpayers dont pay taxes on expenses they pay them on net income. NA sells books for money not staples. Gee you sure are smart Glex. LOL

Resounding reverberation of net silence as Glex fails to reply to his utter failure to adequately research or analyze the issues he presumes to lecture us upon. The sound of silence where a thoughtful reply might have come from a better humanoid. Nill replies to any reasonable questions on my part, from Glex, a one way tripetalker.

The bottom line is that there are structural reasons why Whites are faring badly. NA v US case shines a light on how we are denied the same rights of free association that are extended to others, and how we are subjected to a level of IRS scrutiny that nobody else suffers. That is the point of this thread: US a free country for Whites, or not.

More evidence of lack of freedom of association for Whites, from Canny Sammy.

http://www.vdare.com/francis/white_club.htm

It's a Free Country. Until the jailer actually gags you, you can still speak. You have total freedom to move about within the constraints of the prison.
Thus, hair-splitting Judeophilic nerd, Glex, wins another argument!
Has he ever lost one?
Never!
Just ask him.
Well I've yet to lose one here, anyway. Because you have consistently failed to prove your point. And calling me a nerd doesn't prove your point, either, I might add.

As for the argument, mine is simple enough.
Mine too. You are free to say anything you'd like. Whether you belong to an organization that has to pay taxes or not has nothing to do with that fact. Prove it does.

Resounding reverberation of net silence as Antiochus Epiphanes fails to reply to his utter failure to adequately research or analyze the issues he presumes to lecture us upon.

Mine too. You are free to say anything you'd like. Whether you belong to an organization that has to pay taxes or not has nothing to do with that fact. Prove it does.

I already did [noble boozer], you're just too dense to get it. Tax exemption is a benefit conferred on similarly situated people differently due to their race which violates due process and equal protection of laws. Pro-jews, Pro-blacks get their "educational" tax exemption, "pro-Whites" in the case of NA didnt.

If you understood the first thing about law you would acknowledge that. You merely continue to illuminate your own ignorance.

I already did [noble boozer], you're just too dense to get it. Tax exemption is a benefit conferred on similarly situated people differently due to their race which violates due process and equal protection of laws. Pro-jews, Pro-blacks get their "educational" tax exemption, "pro-Whites" in the case of NA didnt.

If you understood the first thing about law you would acknowledge that. You merely continue to illuminate your own ignorance.

I'll save us a little time and respond for Glex.

AE, that may be true but how does that stifle "free speech"? Of course jews and blacks get special tax exemptions and Whites don't but you still haven't explained how Whites are stopped from speaking and still have to pay "taxes on its office supplies".

Also, notice how I not so cleverly shift the point of the argument from pro White groups not receiving the same tax exeptions that other more Pcee groups get, to non sequitars like, "you are arguing that only tax exempt corporations can have free speech".

Game, set, match..AE! I, The Glexter, has once again defeated you in debate and in fact remain undefeated!

I think the whole tax exempt debate can be overrated. After all American Renaissance and Vdare both have tax exempt status and how much has it helped them? True, both are jew-friendly but they are highly critical of many aspects of what may be called the American Racial State- defined by laws and a propaganda stream which is pro-minority, pro-immigrant, pro-feminist and anti-white.
The little success against this system has been undercut by the courts and bureaucratic obstructionism. Remember the fate of Prop 187 and the continuing efforts by educational bureaucrats and others to emasculate Prop 209. Also consider the recent Supreme Court decision on AA. There is a regime in place that does everything it can to marginalize and , if necessary, destroy its opponents. Tax exemption is not its most important tool, and I'm sure its happy if the opposition spends most of time typing in cyberspace.

In a truly free country I think crime would be very low like in early times of this country and in Europe. A number of people (not wn's) have said to me the criminals have more rights than we do. That's something that affects us all and so people are awakened more so on this problem. I haven't figured it all out but I wonder if a high crime rate is another method of control. Another thing people have mentioned is that certain crimes like bank robbery are given high priority, while muggings and street robberies are not."Death Wish" is a great movie because so many people understood how Charles Bronson's character felt, how angry he was. Come to think of it maybe Death Wish was a prowhite movie without saying so. Remember before his family was murdered he didn't believing in owning a gun.

In a truly free country I think crime would be very low like in early times of this country and in Europe.
This is one of those old paradoxes Libertoonians don't understand:

The "freer" a society, the less free it becomes.

The societies most free are those that are kept free and this requires force and will on behalf of the leadership class; or goodly tyrants who understand and enforce the laws of their forefathers.

The societies most free are those that are kept free and this requires force and will on behalf of a leadership class; or goodly tyrants who understand and enforce the laws of our forefathers.
Agreed. Our liberty was won from the Redcoats in 1776 by brutal force. The leadership class are those with guns and the will to use them.
***
In a democraracy, the tyrant is the majority.
***
Enforcing the laws of our forefathers without revolution is now totally impossible.

Freedom in regards to this thread revolves mainly around the premise of free speech (AE’s remarks withstanding). It goes farther than that though.



Take home ownership for example. I buy a plot of land and build my home upon it. In time I will assuredly pay that loan off. Will the land and house be mine? No. The government requires property taxes, forever; therefore my purchase will never be paid off. This chains me to servitude as a member of the workforce. Also, should the government decide to build a road through my property it would be impossible to stop it. If the government decided that a shopping mall would benefit a local town by being on my property then I would lose it then as well. Yeah, I may be reimbursed but my freedom to own that particular lot has vanished.

Modern travel is a privilege bestowed upon you by the government. You must pay for a license and submit to photo identification. This card must be carried everywhere and presented upon request by the police, banks, government buildings and grocery stores (alcohol, cigarette sales) or you will not receive services or products and failure to have it may inflict fines. You can never own your car outright, due to never ending property taxes, and annual inspections (in most states) are to be paid for by you or heavy fines are placed upon you. In addition to the cost of the car the government forces us to pay for insurance on the car for as long as the car is driven.

As for any children in the home they are mine unless the government decides I’m not raising them properly. All that is required for the state to take my kids is for some stranger to phone a local government DSS office with purported claims and they take the kids first and fret about the details later.

As Fredrik Haerne pointed out, freedom of association is gone due to the ‘civil rights act’.

These examples are off the top of my head and I’m sure more examples exist but I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in for now.

Well cracker, my point is that the lack of the things you are talking about isn't freedom, it's license. Anarchy. In any society there will be certain rules that curtail freedom. Having license plates on my car isn't that burdensome. It is somewhat, but the benefit it confers more than outweighs the cost. It's a lack of freedom, sure, but one I can live with.

When people say, "This country isn't free", what they really mean is that they are denied some freedoms, some license which they would like. The other freedoms that people have, but they don't agree with, well, that's just fine to get rid of.

Every poster here that "wants a white country", is asking for a curtailment of freedoms the likes of which this country has never seen. Isn't not "freedom" they want. It's tyranny. Tyranny they agree with. Just look at some of the previous posts.

The societies most free are those that are kept free and this requires force and will on behalf of the leadership class; or goodly tyrants who understand and enforce the laws of their forefathers.

See that? Goodly tyrants! Tyranny is fine, so long as we agree with it. That's why this whole "This is not a free country" thread is ridiculous. It's free in some ways, not others. And it is demonstrably freer than many other countries around the world.

Glex, you obviously prefer to keep the tyranny that is in place in America, that of the Jews and their useful goy associates. You enjoy and wish to preserve the comfort and stability of that system. Most here (racially aware Whites) would prefer to chance the tyranny of self-rule than to continue under the Jew's rule, which we recognize to be fatal to the interests of our race.
Iv'e seen you claim not to have a personal stake in the fortunes of the Jewish supremacists, I don't believe it. What other reason could you have for the miles of verbiage, the scholastic twists and turns of your endless arguments.... for what? To prove that you can argue well? To convert the naughty racialists to politically correct thought?
Ask yourself what your purpose is here and if you achieve it. Then tell me.*************** [Hey, Civil Forum -- Franco]

Glex would have been perfectly happy under the British in 1776. If it had been up to folks like Glex, there wouldn't have been a Revolution.

It's hopeless; Glex sees a society composed of only atomized individuals. He apparently does not see how a highly organized group can seize the levers of mass communications and government and impose its own peculiar vision- even in a so-called democracy. Individual freedom and the self-determination of a people are entirely different concepts. Any Aryan-ruled society will have plenty of individual freedom but the survival of the people who created that society should be foremost, and nothing should be allowed to jeopardize that.

It's hopeless; Glex sees a society composed of only atomized individuals. He apparently does not see how a highly organized group can seize the levers of mass communications and government and impose its own peculiar vision- even in a so-called democracy. Individual freedom and the self-determination of a people are entirely different concepts. Any Aryan-ruled society will have plenty of individual freedom but the survival of the people who created that society should be foremost, and nothing should be allowed to jeopardize that.

well said. Laconian Sparta is our past, decadent Athens of Alkibiades our present, and Laconian Sparta yet again our future.

Iv'e seen you claim not to have a personal stake in the fortunes of the Jewish supremacists, I don't believe it. What other reason could you have for the miles of verbiage, the scholastic twists and turns of your endless arguments.... for what? To prove that you can argue well? To convert the naughty racialists to politically correct thought?
Ask yourself what your purpose is here and if you achieve it. Then tell me.


Why don't you just shut up?
Believe it or not, it's true. I'm not jewish or a white supremacist.

Why don't I shut up? Because it's a free country. ;) Really though Momus, thank you for the compliment. I always love when people ask "why are you here", because it signals the last gasp of the poster. Running out of steam, unable to counter arguments, your last, exasperated gasp.

But honestly, I come here for simple reasons.

It does my heart good to prove you are wrong, Momus. Not just you, but others too. I enjoy highlighting your hypocrisy. And of course, the fat ADL check I get for being here.

Any Aryan-ruled society will have plenty of individual freedom but the survival of the people who created that society should be foremost, and nothing should be allowed to jeopardize that.
Plenty of freedom? Only to the point where it starts to affect society, then "nothing should be allowed to jeopardize that." In other words, you can be as free as the state allows you. How is that different than the current system, I wonder?

Individuals will be subordinate to the will of the 'good tyrants'. But what if the tyrants aren't that good? Why should I willingly (and gladly, according to most here), subjugate my will to this glorious leader? Why is that tyrant any better at running my life then I am?

All you are looking to do is trade one tyrant for another. How is that different?

AE, you can't wimp out by pulling the old "you must be a jew" card. You didn't read anything, as evidenced by the fact you can only “quote relevant texts when you are ready”. Riiiiiiight! When you are ready. AE, you simply aren't fooling anyone. You can't make the point that tax free status is needed for free speech. No one can really, except perhaps, the National Endowment for the Arts. You aren't an NEA supporter, are you? Hey! He's an NEA-oid! We labeled him, so now we can dismiss him!

Your little riff about the NA not being free because they have to pay taxes is lame. It just doesn't fly. And calling me a jew doesn't make it so. Its a weak attempt to smear me, AE. But it sure beats actually arguing your point, eh?
Wait...I just noticed this. The whole NEA controversy was about federal subsidies not tax exemption.Maybe you don't recognize the difference between the two, but it is amusing to contemplate VNN and Stormfront competing for grants from the National Endowmment for White Nationalism. In any case you were factually incorrect.

Glex,

Slavery can be included in your version of freedom. A slave could say what he wanted, "he wouldn’t be very popular" with the overseer "but he could say it". A slave could live in the shack out back and call it home, he could decorate and furnish it to his desire until his master wanted otherwise. The slave could marry and have kids and raise them the way he wanted until the master wanted otherwise. The slave could go into town and buy supplies but that slip of paper showing identification better be in his hand. The slave could live with that kind of tyranny, oppression whatever you want to call it because he was clothed, fed and cared for and it worked for thousands of years. He was FREE according to YOUR definition and didn’t even know it. (“you can be as free as the state allows you. How is that different than the current system, I wonder?” -Glex)

.........It does my heart good to prove you are wrong, Momus. Not just you, but others too. I enjoy highlighting your hypocrisy. And of course, the fat ADL check I get for being here.

I'm glad to hear you're getting paid by the ADL. Let's hope you're getting paid quite a bit matter of fact, and that they dont fire you and go out and get somebody more effective to come disrupt er I mean "debate" here. In fact I think you should ask for a raise and steal some office supplies next time you are there.

Wait...I just noticed this. The whole NEA controversy was about federal subsidies not tax exemption.Maybe you don't recognize the difference between the two, but it is amusing to contemplate VNN and Stormfront competing for grants from the National Endowmment for White Nationalism. In any case you were factually incorrect.
I realize the difference between the two, but they end up as the same thing. A government gracious enough to either give money directly or take away less. My point was twofold. Why should such an anti-government group like the NA (or VNN for that matter), care about such grace from their government? And how does the lack of that grace cause them to not have freedom of speech? Notice AE's lack of response to that. Rather telling, eh?

I'm glad to hear you're getting paid by the ADL. Let's hope you're getting paid quite a bit matter of fact, and that they dont fire you and go out and get somebody more effective to come disrupt er I mean "debate" here. In fact I think you should ask for a raise and steal some office supplies next time you are there.
That's right, AE. I'm such a lousy debater in fact, that you have yet counter any argument I've made. Jesus, what are you going to do in the real world?

Slavery can be included in your version of freedom.
How would you define freedom then? How is the white society you dream of more free then current America?

Wait...I just noticed this. The whole NEA controversy was about federal subsidies not tax exemption.Maybe you don't recognize the difference between the two, but it is amusing to contemplate VNN and Stormfront competing for grants from the National Endowmment for White Nationalism. In any case you were factually incorrect.

Excellent point. I glossed over this because he was wrong and not worth debating. It ought to be patently obvious to anyone how stupidly wrong he was in his anemic rejoinder.

For example: let's say I live next to joe. We have the same sized lot and home. Joe pays a thousand bucks a year in real property taxes, but I dont pay any. Why? Joe's a democrat and I'm a republican, and the local adjuster doesnt like joe's politics. In fact, democrats all over the state have to pay more taxes on the same stuff compared to republicans...Glex says Joe and the democrats still have "free speech" though just because they arent in jail. ??

Basically, Glex is either ignorant or deceptive or both. The lack of equal treatment in taxation for similarly situated individuals is an issue of basic fairness and due process even more fundamental than "free speech" as a juridical concept. When you hook up that lack of equal treatment or "equal protection" as it's called, to the IDEAS THE TAXPAYER ARTICULATES, you have an "infringement of the right of free speech."

Glex's idea of freedom is pretty Jewish: Jews and their lackeys are "free" to receive special treatment in their favor, and we are "free" to complain about it provided we remain disorganized and powerless.

I repeat: We all have the freedom to say anything we want, as long as either
a.) it's not both true and consequential, or
b.) nobody (or relatively very few) can actually HEAR us.

It is only if and when we manage to effectively infringe upon the jews' [for-now and for-decades-long exclusive] "right to be heard" via their mass-media, that we may find just how much our vaunted First Amendment is worth in actual fact.

.......... Some hindu once made the made the analogy of concentric vs. eccentric circles in knowledge, understanding and growth. The former connoting getting away from self-centeredness (literally), and the latter, well, you get the point.

Very interesting. Deepcrak Chitprong? LOL Seriously, where'd you get that, it's a nice analogy.

Glex, you willfully misunderstand people, and you know it. You will pull anything out of your ass before you admit (even to yourself, I suspect) that you're wrong about something.
No, I'm not willfully misunderstanding. No one has made the point clear enough for me to understand.

My point is that in America, you can do X, but not Y. In your white country, you could do A, but not B.

As a third party, I don’t see how one is any more free than the other. Why don’t you explain it to me? How is the tyranny of whites any better than the tyranny of jews?

Well now, this is the civil forum and we must be civil here. I must say, that is a very revealing remark you just made, Glex. It should be preserved, like some rare ancient bug in amber. Please look again at what you said. Read the last sentence and reflect upon whom you address.
Now, ask yourself why you think you deserve an answer.
Then ask youself why you shouldn't be ignored as the most barefacedly stupid jerk ever to waste the time of people on this forum?

No, I'm not willfully misunderstanding. No one has made the point clear enough for me to understand.

My point is that in America, you can do X, but not Y. In your white country, you could do A, but not B.

As a third party, I don’t see how one is any more free than the other. Why don’t you explain it to me? How is the tyranny of whites any better than the tyranny of jews?

Well now, this is the civil forum and we must be civil here. I must say, that is a very revealing remark you just made, Glex. It should be preserved, like some rare ancient bug in amber. Please look again at what you said. Read the last sentence and reflect upon whom you address.
Now, ask yourself why you think you deserve an answer.
Then ask youself why you shouldn't be ignored as the most barefacedly stupid jerk ever to waste the time of people on this forum?
I knew you’d pick up on that. When I said tyranny of jews, I just didn’t feel like adding (according to you) or supposed. You think America is a tyranny of the jews. All I ask is you show me how your society will be any less tyrannical.

As for why you should answer my questions, you shouldn’t. Clearly you can’t. So why even make the attempt? It’s odd though. Such a barefacedly stupid jerk as myself should be easy to crush. You’d think it would be possible, heck, easy to out-argue such a person. You wouldn't even need to call them a jerk, or anything! You could simply present your (obvious) arguments and stand back.

And yet, that hasn't happened. This entire “you are a stupid jerk” post is just a variation on the ‘why do you post’ motif. Although instead of ‘why do you post’, it’s ‘why do I respond’. Keep ‘em coming! I love it.

It's a variation on Godwin's law. The first one to resort to name calling loses, Momus.

So I can just imagine what is next. Momus will either run away by putting me on ignore, or recommend I get banned. And now, Momus, you have the whole weekend to decide which. Enjoy!

I'll tell you now, I need say nothing; you have "said it all."



I knew you’d pick up on that. When I said tyranny of jews, I just didn’t feel like adding (according to you) or supposed. You think America is a tyranny of the jews. All I ask is you show me how your society will be any less tyrannical.

As for why you should answer my questions, you shouldn’t. Clearly you can’t. So why even make the attempt? It’s odd though. Such a barefacedly stupid jerk as myself should be easy to crush. You’d think it would be possible, heck, easy to out-argue such a person. You wouldn't even need to call them a jerk, or anything! You could simply present your (obvious) arguments and stand back.

And yet, that hasn't happened. This entire “you are a stupid jerk” post is just a variation on the ‘why do you post’ motif. Although instead of ‘why do you post’, it’s ‘why do I respond’. Keep ‘em coming! I love it.

It's a variation on Godwin's law. The first one to resort to name calling loses, Momus.

So I can just imagine what is next. Momus will either run away by putting me on ignore, or recommend I get banned. And now, Momus, you have the whole weekend to decide which. Enjoy!

I'll tell you now, I need say nothing; you have "said it all."
So it's to be ignore? Sure you don't want the weekend to think about it?

Glex cant understand how imposing unequal tax burdens infringes free speech, after much illustration.

conclusion: Glex rides [a bus of indeterminate length].

In the interest of civility I shall strike out the offensive phrase and replace it with an accurate description. You have no reason now to twist the argument into a protest against my incivil ad hominem. I return you to your earlier remark and my response:
Originally Posted by MOMUS
Well now, this is the civil forum and we must be civil here. I must say, that is a very revealing remark you just made, Glex. It should be preserved, like some rare ancient bug in amber. Please look again at what you said. Read the last sentence and reflect upon whom you address.
Now, ask yourself why you think you deserve an answer.
Then ask youself why you shouldn't be ignored as the most argumentative and boring troll ever to waste the time of people on this forum?
Originally Posted by Glex
No, I'm not willfully misunderstanding. No one has made the point clear enough for me to understand.

My point is that in America, you can do X, but not Y. In your white country, you could do A, but not B.

As a third party, I don’t see how one is any more free than the other. Why don’t you explain it to me? How is the tyranny of whites any better than the tyranny of jews?


So it's to be ignore? Sure you don't want the weekend to think about it?

I have no power to have you banned. I don't care if you are or not.
Some consider you an amiable bore and enjoy verbally smacking you. You're too soft and yielding for my taste, too jellyfish-like. You claim not to be Jewish, bah. Your "arguments" are just like those Hitler described as having with the yidn all those years ago. I don't pay much attention to your slimy textual wrigglings.
You should wear that remark that I remarked in your signiture line like a yellow star.
Glex: How is the tyranny of whites any better than the tyranny of jews?

How would you define freedom then? How is the white society you dream of more free then current America?

Since you didn’t deny that your version of freedom can be applied to a slave what difference would it make to you what my version of freedom is? :rolleyes:

Here's another case underlining the feebdom in this cuntry:
---------

Keith Carney was 20 years old at the time of his arrest in early December of 2001. A resident of the Browns Mills section of Pemberton Township, PA, Mr. Carney was not known to have any prior record of "racially related criminal activity" when he and fellow Township member, Dale Smith, were arrested in the city of Philadelphia for stickering. (Carney did, however, have a prior conviction for Petty Assault-- but it was not listed as a racially related criminal activity.***) At present, Carney remains in Lackawanna County Prison awaiting trial. Those proceedings are currently scheduled to begin in October of 2003.

The arrests were made after the lads were found stickering street signs and utility poles in the Society Hill section of Philadelphia. The stickers included messages such as "Enough: Whites Lets Take Back America" and "Stop Immigration of NonWhites" and were noted to be imprinted with National Alliance insignia.

At the time of the arrests, the two were believed to be a part of the group of 8-10 seen, but not immediately apprehended, stickering the Vietnam Veterans' memorial located at Front & Spruce Streets. These stickers, also of National Alliance imprimature, were emblazoned with messages Cautioning White Women against inter-racial sexual activity due to the increased risk of contracting AIDs from the black male population, documented to be statistically more likely to be AIDs infected/carriers.
(No mention was made in SF board postings if anything was done by the PD to track down the other half dozen+ folks who were perhaps tactless in their Public Health Campaign efforts, by way of use of the war Memorial as a posting area.)

The original charges listed against Carney & Smith were posted as including "institutional vandalism," "desecration of objects," and "criminal mischief." A subsequent post noted that charges of "ethnic intimidation" had been added. ALL ARE FELONY CHARGES. It was noted that the sentences could amount to five years, cumulatively.
However, that statement was not specific with regard to whether that allowed concurrent service of sentenced time in the event that all charges become convictions, credit for time served awaiting trial, and the possibility of reductions in time served for "good behavior." (In my experience with "jail math" down South, "cumulative" was reserved for the necessity that time for charges be worked off one after around-- like loads of laundry that couldn't make it into the dryer until the dryed was empty from the last load... One dryer, honey-- pull your time! Doesn't matter if you already washed that next load of laundry-- it's only going to mildew waiting that way! Only just counts for dirty until the dryer is empty from this load in it now, tumbling on...) I, for one, would be interested to hear more specifically about what the fellas face for their stickering escapade, in terms of sentencing guidelines for each of the felony charges posed. Commentary on their conduct while awaiting trial & how that influences "credit for time served" and the "good time" rating established appears pertinent as well. Is the tenor heading into the trial such that they are likely to be hit with "cumulative" time, instead of more reasonable accounting for their service within the penitentiary system?...
Sorry to have gotten off track from the review of pre-posted info, there-- but it is a "relevant detail" for those of us with experience regarding the harrowing qualities of "serving time while awaiting trial" and the "nuances" which can make lunch sit like a brick of lead while awaiting the next shift in political winds...

The perception is that Federal pressure/sanction was provided to ensure that the charges lodged were Felony class, as opposed to other options available for pursuit of "justice" for the stickering incident. The post 9/11 climate and the need to be firm with regard to intolerance of intolerance is indicated as the motivation for a Federal perspective being considered relevant in a Philadelphia based incident. That the men were non-residents and came into the city from a distance to untake the stickering was also perceived as a factor in the more stern posture towards the case.

Bail had originally been posted lower but was increased to $50,000 for Carney. The required bond of $5000 was unavailable for that use & the follow-up from a fundraising effort was not posted as adequately sucessful for bond to be made & Carney to be released while awaiting trial. No comment on the success of the effort to raise funds or the specifics of financial needs in the defense efforts were found in SF posts.

At present, Carney is available for visits on Sundays at the prison. His postal address follows (repeat from prior):

Keith Carney
LCP
1371 N. Washington Ave.
Scranton, PA 18509

Visiting is encouraged-- the moral support is needed! IrishJay pointed out that there is even a pleasant Irish Pub across the way from the facility for refreshment after having takent he time to bolster Carney's spirits.

No specific news of Dale Smith, who was arrested with Carney, was included in the SF posts. Neither was mention made of any proceedings pertaining to other people believed to be involved in stickering that Saturday in Philadelphia. Carney, however, needs our continued & reinvigorated support as the trial looms nearer."

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=85830&page=2&pp=10

Read all about it here in the feebpress:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/skinheads/skinheads26.html

And here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=271

Or how 'bout a having a little ole bake sale ?

--------------
The UW College Republicans' Oct. 8 bake sale took place about the same time as a step performance by a traditionally black fraternity and drew plenty of attention.

Chambers said students engaged in a couple hours of good, heated discussion, until some began yelling and tearing down signs, even throwing cookies at members of the conservative group.

"I really thought that everyone on campus could maintain their composure and have a civil discussion without getting violent. I was really surprised that it went that far," Chambers said.

UW spokesman Robert Roseth said the administration had nothing to do with the shutdown. The group's members dismantled the booth voluntarily after the office of student affairs asked them if they wished to take it down, he said.

Rose, a 20-year-old junior majoring in American Ethnic Studies, backs up the university's account.

"It was for their own safety," Rose said. "They shut themselves down."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/12/24/affirmative.bake.sale.ap/

I have no power to have you banned. I don't care if you are or not.
Some consider you an amiable bore and enjoy verbally smacking you.
Well, a verbal smack is so much easier than actually arguing a point. You couldn’t do it, AE couldn’t do it (witness the edit by Linder). Why is that? Why, when something so simple and obvious and right and good as white nationalism’s version of freedom is brought up, can you simply not make the case? I've never had to resort to insult. Why can't you?

You're too soft and yielding for my taste, too jellyfish-like.
You claim not to be Jewish, bah.
Feh. Another "you must be a jew" post. Jesus, is that really all you are capable of?

Your "arguments" are just like those Hitler described as having with the yidn all those years ago. I don't pay much attention to your slimy textual wrigglings.
I’m sure Hitler was quite the rhetorician. Why don’t you emulate him and actually try to prove your case? Calling me a jew doesn’t do it for you.

You should wear that remark that I remarked in your signiture line like a yellow star.
Tell you what, you actually answer that remark, and I will. Deal?

Here it is: Glex: How is the tyranny of whites any better than the tyranny of jews?

Waiting for your answer! Heck, can anyone answer?

pattern: glex invites proof. proof adduced. glex ignores. more proof exposited. glex ignores and goads. people insult out of frustration. glex runs to the cover of civility.

WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807036099/qid=1087229215/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6688565-0932809?v=glance&s=books

Glexstein, do you consider this proof? LOL

from recent Ralph Nader interview

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html

PB: Why do both sets of puppets, support the Sharon/Likud policies in the Middle East rather than the peace movement candidates and leaders in Israel?

RN: That is a good question because the peace movement is broad indeed. They just put 120,000 people in a square in Tel Aviv. They are composed of former government ministers, existing and former members of the Knesset, former generals, former combat veterans, former heads of internal security, people from all backgrounds. It is not any fringe movement.

The answer to your question is that instead of focusing on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state elections and as sources of funding. They don?t appear to agree with Tom Friedman, who wrote that memorable phrase, ?Ariel Sharon has Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.?

Virtually no member of Congress can say that, and so we come to this paradoxical conclusion that there is far more freedom in Israel to discuss this than there is in the United States, which is providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.

The answer to your question is that instead of focusing on how to bring a peaceful settlement, both parties concede their independent judgment to the pro-Israeli lobbies in this country because they perceive them as determining the margin in some state elections and as sources of funding. They don?t appear to agree with Tom Friedman, who wrote that memorable phrase, ?Ariel Sharon has Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office.?

Virtually no member of Congress can say that, and so we come to this paradoxical conclusion that there is far more freedom in Israel to discuss this than there is in the United States, which is providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance.

Glexstein, do you consider this proof? LOL

No, I don’t. I consider it opinion. And so do you, by the way. Why didn’t you post the entire article? Because some things Nader said, you don’t agree with. So do you consider that proof? You don’t? Why not? Because he is right on some things, but not others, of course. So Nader has an opinion on 100 different issues in that article, some of which you agree with, some you don’t.

That’s opinion. Not proof. All you've done is shown what Nader thinks of Israel. Nothing more.

If I posted a bevy of quotes from powerful and influential men that supported Israel, would that it change your mind? Would it constitute proof to you?

White tyranny? What "white tyranny"? Racial democracy isn't tyranny. Even Patria patriae isn't tyranny. For all the supposed tyranny of the ancients, they never banned criticism or insults of certain groups as we do (UN conferences on antisemitism, on racism, on xenophobia); we live in nanny states here in the West, nanny states which proclaim that we are free and declare war in the name of this spurious freedom.

So, Glex, I'll leave you with my own query: IN WHAT WAY WOULD WHITE RULE BE TYRANNY? Because if you're sick and tired of being labelled a Jew here, why should we accept your little principle of equating racialism with tyranny and totalitarianism?

Because if you're sick and tired of being labelled a Jew here
I’m not tired of it at all. I realize it’s all most people have here. I wouldn’t dream of taking it away from them. I just think that since I’m not jewish, it’s pretty stupid to call me so. Might as well call me a Martian. But they think it’s insulting, so it makes them happy. And I certainly won’t stand in the way of their happiness.

So, Glex, I'll leave you with my own query: IN WHAT WAY WOULD WHITE RULE BE TYRANNY?
Easy. Certain people would be expelled/executed on sight (blacks). Certain religions would be banned (judaism). Freedom of association would be limited to only those the government thinks I should be allowed to associate with. Will I be able to create interracial porn? What about non-porn, but still interracial, say, love stories? Can I paint my masterpiece “Mulatto Child Celebrated?” Can I produce and sell any product I would like to? Can I stand on a street corner with a sign saying “Blacks make better lovers?” Can I advocate the violent overthrow of your new government? Can I hire a Mexican laborer to work in my factory? Can I bring my new Japanese bride back home with me? Can I wear a tee-shirt printed “I am sick and tired of white girls?”

Need I go on? Your society will be appreciably less free.

No, I don’t. I consider it opinion. And so do you, by the way. Why didn’t you post the entire article? Because some things Nader said, you don’t agree with. So do you consider that proof? You don’t? Why not? Because he is right on some things, but not others, of course. So Nader has an opinion on 100 different issues in that article, some of which you agree with, some you don’t.

That’s opinion. Not proof. All you've done is shown what Nader thinks of Israel. Nothing more.

If I posted a bevy of quotes from powerful and influential men that supported Israel, would that it change your mind? Would it constitute proof to you?

Bottom line Glex is you never consider proof proof, because you've ruled out evidence contrary to your own opinion as non-proof ab initio.

The proposition concerned whether one rightly calls the US a free country when anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist viewpoints are actively suppressed not only by the powerful private actions of the Jews but also by government act or omission. I proved it once, and I proposed Nader as an example of a corroborating opinion since he is explicitly non-racist and moreover I think he's probably Lebanese by ethnicity so it would be hard to call him an antisemite. But, for a disruptor such as yourself the perpetual pattern is ignore deny ignore deny ingnore deny ad nauseam. Your inability to engage in reasoned gentlemanly debate is the second thing that has been demonstrated here with clarity.

By the way, it's what Nader thinks of the US, and how restricted our speech is here where Israel is concerned, not what nader thinks of Israel. I should have added to the pattern of your tactics, "ignore deny ingnore deny distort ignore deny distort..."

By the way, it's what Nader thinks of the US, and how restricted our speech is here where Israel is concerned, not what nader thinks of Israel. I should have added to the pattern of your tactics, "ignore deny ingnore deny distort ignore deny distort..."
That's my point. It's what Nader thinks. He also thinks gay marriage is just fine. How can he be so wrong about gay marriage, but so right about Israel?

That's my point. It's what Nader thinks. He also thinks gay marriage is just fine. How can he be so wrong about gay marriage, but so right about Israel?

RELEVANCE: NONE. Distract, confuse, obfuscate. I'm not talking about gay marriage, nobody is but you. That's not what this thread is about.

Easy. Certain people would be expelled/executed on sight (blacks). Certain religions would be banned (judaism). Freedom of association would be limited to only those the government thinks I should be allowed to associate with. Will I be able to create interracial porn? What about non-porn, but still interracial, say, love stories? Can I paint my masterpiece “Mulatto Child Celebrated?” Can I produce and sell any product I would like to? Can I stand on a street corner with a sign saying “Blacks make better lovers?” Can I advocate the violent overthrow of your new government? Can I hire a Mexican laborer to work in my factory? Can I bring my new Japanese bride back home with me? Can I wear a tee-shirt printed “I am sick and tired of white girls?”

Need I go on? Your society will be appreciably less free.


Easy. Certain people would be expelled/executed on sight (blacks). Certain religions would be banned (judaism).

If this is done then …

Freedom of association would be limited to only those the government thinks I should be allowed to associate with.

Only Whites would be left so association could only occur with whites therefore no problem.

Will I be able to create interracial porn? What about non-porn, but still interracial, say, love stories? Can I paint my masterpiece “Mulatto Child Celebrated?” Can I produce and sell any product I would like to? Can I stand on a street corner with a sign saying “Blacks make better lovers?”

(cont. from above) this will be an historical footnote. Or they could do it, they wouldn’t be very popular but they could do it.

Can I advocate the violent overthrow of your new government?

You sure could, you might not be popular but you could do it.

Can I hire a Mexican laborer to work in my factory? Can I bring my new Japanese bride back home with me?

“What are Mexicans/Japanese?” would be the question of the day.


Can I wear a tee-shirt printed “I am sick and tired of white girls?”

You could wear it, you wouldn’t be popular but you could do it.

Need I go on? Your society will be appreciably less free.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about?

Jesus Oden, this thread is still going on? I don't feel like scrolling back to see what's going on, but I will make a guess: Glex is on a high-and-mighty roll with lots of intense posting, which will go on for a while until he disappears after proclaiming victory. We have seen this countless times already, so it's nothing new.

"Freedom" is the god of the libertarians. Life is my god. To talk about "freedom" as such makes little sense; it makes much more sense to talk about specific freedoms. But it should be remembered that Whites are the most freedom-loving people on earth, the inventors of political freedom, and the inventor of strong property rights. You will have much more freedoms in a White society than in a dark or race-mixed society; where's the Voltaire of China? Of the Xhosi or the Mayan? Without Whites the whole world would be back to dictatorships in a matter of decades, if not years, and I don't think that would be particularly bad either.

No, most freedoms mentioned today I'm not too fond of. But there are some freedoms I like, and they make up one of the reasons I want to live in a White country -- the other reasons being to avoid the murder of my people, the best people, through crime, war and starvation. So we Whites say we want freedom in a racial context. That's not hard to understand for anyone on earth. Except for the minority of Western Whites who have succumbed to the anti-White brainwashing. (Yes, it is a minority of the West. Despite the heavy barrage of daily media attacks. Fascinating, that.)

Easy. Certain people would be expelled/executed on sight (blacks). Certain religions would be banned (judaism). Freedom of association would be limited to only those the government thinks I should be allowed to associate with. Will I be able to create interracial porn? What about non-porn, but still interracial, say, love stories? Can I paint my masterpiece ?Mulatto Child Celebrated?? Can I produce and sell any product I would like to? Can I stand on a street corner with a sign saying ?Blacks make better lovers?? Can I advocate the violent overthrow of your new government? Can I hire a Mexican laborer to work in my factory? Can I bring my new Japanese bride back home with me? Can I wear a tee-shirt printed ?I am sick and tired of white girls??

Need I go on? Your society will be appreciably less free.

Liberty cannot be divorced from the social context from which it originated. Ordered liberty - parliamentary government, voting privileges, freedom of speech, the assumption that all men are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and the concept of private property - arose specifically among Europeans. To believe these privileges can and should be bestowed equally to all races living under the same government is to defy common sense. Asians historically have a propensity towards despotism and negroes a propensity towards unruliness. Non-whites are intellectually and psychologically incapable of creating a society where ordered liberty flourishes. This can be seen in the societies they created for themselves in Central America, Asia and the African continent.

When the people from these countries have become America's numerical majority, we will be 'appreciably less free'.

Carl

RELEVANCE: NONE. Distract, confuse, obfuscate. I'm not talking about gay marriage, nobody is but you. That's not what this thread is about.
RELEVANCE: ALL. You are the one that brought up nader. You pick and choose what you like from his beliefs, and call anything you don't agree with him on "not relevant". Answer the question, AE. How can Nader be so right about Israel, but so wrong about gay marriage? What makes him right about one thing, but so wrong about another?

RELEVANCE: ALL. You are the one that brought up nader. You pick and choose what you like from his beliefs, and call anything you don't agree with him on "not relevant". Answer the question, AE. How can Nader be so right about Israel, but so wrong about gay marriage? What makes him right about one thing, but so wrong about another?

relevance, NONE. the thread is about freedom of speech not gay marriage. you are the one who refuses to answer. your incivility and evasiveness and complete failure to address the issues raised in the case I provided NA V US, shows the weakness of your position.

"Freedom" in the West: (http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Liberty.pdf)

De Facto Censorship and the Corruption of Scholarship

As a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science in 1973, I witnessed a physical assault on Hans Eysenck, who was studying the biological basis of intelligence and had recently published his book Race, Intelligence, and Education (1971). The slogan of that day was "Fascists Have No Right To Speak," and Eysenck became a target for attack. No legal charges were brought for the widely witnesses assault because another popular slogan of the 1960's , for those who approved the message but disapproved the tactic, was "There are no Enemies on the Left." Stories of harassment and intimidation could be told by many others who have had the temerity to research topics that touch on the genetic or distributional basis of race differences.

Today, many campus radicals from the 1960's are the tenured radicals of the 1990's. They have become the chairs of departments, the deans, and the chancellors of the universities: senior political administrators in Congress and Houses of Parliament, and even the presidents and prime mimisters of countries. The 1960's mentality of peace, love, and above all, equality, now constitutes the intellectual dogma of the Western academic world. There are laws to prohibit platforms for those denounced as "fascists" and others deemed to be not politically correct.

In his book, Kindly Inquisitors, Jonathan Rauch showed that even in the U.S. with the First Amendment in place, many colleges and universities have set up "anti-harassment" rules prohibiting - and establishing punishments for - "speech or other expression" that is intended to "insult or stigmatize an individual or a small number of individuals in the basis of their sex, race, color, hankicap, religion, sexual orientation or national and ethnic origin." (This is quoted from Stanford's policy, and is more or less typical.) One case at the University of Michigan became well known because it led a federal court to strike down the rule in question. A student claimed, in a classroom discussion, that he thought homosexuality was a disease treatable with therapy. He was formally disciplined by the university for violating the school's policy and victimizing people on the basis of sexual orientation.

In Canada and Western Europe, governments can and do prohibit speech on topics they consider obnoxious. In Denmark, a woman wrote a letter to a newspaper calling national domestic partner laws "ungodly" and homosexuality "the ugliest kind of adultery." She and the editor who published her letter were targeted for prosectution. In Great Britain, the Race Relations Act forbids speech that expresses racial hatred, "not only when it is likely to lead to violence, but generally, on the grounds that members of the minority races should be protected from racial insults." In some parts of the world you can be jailed, exiled, or even executed for expressing forbidden opinions.

Irrespective of religious background, or political affiliation, virtually all American intellectuals adhere to what has been called 'one-party science.' For example, only politically correct hypotheses centering on cultural disadvantage are postulated to explain the differential representation of minorities in science. Analyses of aptitude test scores and behavioral genetics are taboo. Cheap moralizing is so fierce that most people respect the taboo. This intellectual cowardice only encourages viscious attacks by activist groups on those who are engaged in legitimate scientific research showing that there is a genetic basis underlying individual and group differences.

The high-placed pervasiveness of the egalitarian orthodoxy is scary. Even more frightening than what happened to me is the experience of Christopher Brand, professor of psychology at Edinburgh University. On February 29, 1996, Brand's book on intelligence, The g Factor, was published in the United Kingdom by the British subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. On April 14, newspaper reports of interviews with him began to appear saying that he thought black people had a lower IQ than did whites and that these were probably partly genetic. On April 17, Wiley's company in New York denounced Brand's views as "repellent" and withdrew the book from bookstores. A blizzard of "refutations" of Brand appeared in the U.K. media under outraged headlines. Protests from members of Parliament, student boycotts of his lectures, and calls for his resignation by faculty at the University of Edinburgh all predictably ensued. Brand's refusal to be silenced and his defense of free speech led him to be fired (on August 8, 1997) for bringing his university into disrepute. There but for the grace God, go I.

In 1995, my monograph Race, Evolution, and Behavior was published by Transaction Publishers. Subsequently, the book was translated into Japanese (1996) and released as a softcover edition (1997) with an Afterword updating the science since the hardback went to press.

The book garnered a lead review in the New York Times Book Review (October 16, 1994) where Malcolm Browne, the Times science writer, discussed it along with Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve and Seymour Itzkoff's The Decline of Intelligence in America. Browne concluded his analysis with the statement that "the government or society that persists in sweeping this topic under the rug will do so at its peril." Dozens of other journals, including the National Review, Nature,andThe Nation, also reviewed it.

Its publication by an important academic press touched off a new round of hysteria. A lurid article screaming "Professors of HATE" (in five-inch letters!) appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (October 20, 1994). Taking up the entire next page was a photograph of my face, hideously darkened, twisted into a ghoulish image, and superimposed on a Gothic university tower. In another long propaganda piece entitled "The Mentality Bunker" which appeared in Gentleman's Quarterly (November 1994), I was misrepresented as an outmoded eugenicist and pseudoscientific racist. A photograph of me was published in brown tint reminiscent of vintage photos from the Hitler era.

Incredibly, Canada Customs seized and witheld copies of one shipment of the book for nine months while they tried to decide whether to condemn the book as "hate literature" and ban it from entering Canada. The fact that an academic book was even the subject of an investigation stunned my publisher: "I've never heard of such a thing," said Mary Curtis, Chairman of the Board of Transaction. "This is not supposed to happen in Canada. The last time the company had trouble shipping scholarly works was in the mid-1980's, when some books shipped to the Moscow Fair didn't make it."

Michel Cléroux, a spokesman for Canada Customs, said Customs were just following orders by investigating possible hate propaganda. A departmental policy prohibiting hate propaganda includes this definition: "Goods alleging that an identifiable group is racially inferior and/or weakens other segments of society to the detriment of society as a whole." After an "investigation" lasting nine months, Canada Customs relented.

Harassment continued at another meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AAAS routinely allows the militantly disruptive International Committee Against Racism (INCAR) and Progressive Labor Party (PLP) to have official "Exhibitor" status, along with a booth, at its annual meeting. At the February 1996 meeting in Baltimore, INCAR and PLP festooned their booth with posters of Karl Marx and signs taking credit for interfering with the University of Maryland conference on "Genes and Crime" in September 1995.

At the AAAS meeting, INCAR targeted my poster presenting a review of the literature on brain size and cognitive ability. When INCAR encountered me the day before the poster presentation, they yelled so many death threats that the AAAS called the Baltimore police, who dispatched an armed officer to stand by the presentation. Despite the guard, INCAR continued to utter threats. One demonstrator took photographs of me saying they were for a "Wanted: Dead or Alive" poster. "You won't be living much longer," he said. Incredibly, instead of cancelling the Exhibitor Status of organizations that threaten violencee, the program director of the AAAS's annual meeting said, in an interview published in The Scientist (March 4, 1996), that AAAS would tighten up the screening process to make it more difficult for presentations like mine to get on the program!

relevance, NONE. the thread is about freedom of speech not gay marriage. you are the one who refuses to answer. your incivility and evasiveness and complete failure to address the issues raised in the case I provided NA V US, shows the weakness of your position.
Antiochus, you are the one who brought up Nader, not me. You quote his thoughts on Israel, in order for me to think they are authoritative. yet, his thoughts on another subject are not supposed to be authoritative, for some reason. Why? Why should I think Nader is right about Israel, but wrong about gay marriage? Why should I believe a speaker is right about one thing, but totally wrong about another?

Antiochus, you are the one who brought up Nader, not me. You quote his thoughts on Israel, in order for me to think they are authoritative. yet, his thoughts on another subject are not supposed to be authoritative, for some reason. Why? Why should I think Nader is right about Israel, but wrong about gay marriage? Why should I believe a speaker is right about one thing, but totally wrong about another?

1) thread not about gay marriage its about freedom of speech. are you having trouble with reading comprehension?
2) I didnt say they were authoritative that is what you say. I'm just pointing out that a leftist like Nader can agree with a rightist like Pat Buch that there is a decided lack of freedom in the US to criticize Israel and that our national foreign policy is under the alien control of Israel. Aliens controlling the government=not free.

I'm the one who's on target, addressing the topic, along with the other posters, and you are annoyingly ignoring the points as they are made and made well. Your replies are spurious and irrelevant and vexatious. You disrupt. Of course that has been your mission here from the beginning.

yet, his thoughts on another subject are not supposed to be authoritative, for some reason.

You really claim that if Antiochus doesn't agree with all the opinions a guy has, he is not allowed to agree with even one of them? Amazing. Do you apply the same rule to yourself? That unless you agree with a guy to a hundred percent, your agreement with him on one topic is without merit? How so? How do you reach this absurd conclusion?

Oh, you were just pretending to believe that ludicrous line of reasoning, in order to avoid addressing the point Antiochus brought up? Ah, that makes more sense. But what a pity you didn't prove to be more intelligent. What a disappointment.

now let me say there is a distinction between acts of public officials which are censorship and acts of private people which are censorship. the US constitution is concerned with the first and not really with the second.

But the line between public and private is sometimes unclear. Many people think that the parties are public but in fact they are private. However they are subject to many laws governing the ways they raise money and register voters and so forth. Here we have a situation where Ralph Nader is going to be excluded from the TV debates between the Democrat and Republican. We can slice and dice this many different ways, but it boils down to this: Nader will be excluded because he is antiwar and not afraid to blame Israel for fomenting the current trajectory in US foreign policy and its attendent curtailment of civil liberties in the US, both which are generally known as "war on terror."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=4&u=/nm/20040617/us_nm/campaign_debates_dc_4

In 1972, [Baptist preacher and media star] Billy Graham not only complained to Nixon and others in the Oval Office about the Jewish stranglehold on the media, he understood what this Jewish media control was doing to America, and he told those in the Oval Office, and I quote, "This stranglehold has got to be broken, or the country's going down the drain." -- end of quote -- President Nixon agreed with Billy Graham, but he was too cowardly to do anything about it. Nixon said, and again I quote from the Oval Office tape, "I can't ever say that, but I believe it."
--Dr. William L. Pierce


The point that Dr. Pierce and others have made many times is that the Fourth Estate is the sine qua non of all de facto censorship started by a non-governmental entity. You have success only if you have media support, otherwise not. (Which everyone who has been "in the game" knows.) Today, noone dares stand up for the White race because the media will immediately clamp down on you, while anti-Whites can rant all day long and never need to present any evidence, because the media will always support them. Therefore it is easy for the anti-Whites to destroy a nationalist's career, personal finances and make his life miserable in a number of ways, as I have witnessed personally in Sweden. The media masters will gleefully pick up on the attack and amplify it, and anyone who would defend the attacked nationalist will back away, lest they too be the subject of slander.

This is how it works. This is how Philippe Rushton and Hans Eysenck in the text I quote above were attacked, and this is how men like them are replaced at the universities by openly proclaimed Marxists. And this is how those engaged in nationalist parties lose their jobs, which I can list at least four cases of in Sweden off the top of my head. The Jews have learned to use our sense of "fairness", our feeling that everyone should be heard, to elbow their way into every room. Then they repay us by collectively shutting out those they don't like and therefore brand "anti-Semites," until noone dares question them. "Racists don't have a right to speak," they say, in countries built by the very race they deny champions.

As someone wrote earlier, it would actually be better if we lived in an outright dictatorship, because then the oppression would not be hidden. Then again, maybe that will come to pass. Sweden today is only a semi-democracy, where a government television and radio monopoly along with a school- and university monopoly has brainwashed entire generations, for decades, and where any real dissent is banned by muddy and flexible laws. The same has happened in many other countries. And now they whine that Russia under Putin is a semi-democracy! Well, duh -- he's probably learning from us!


"We tell the public which way the cat is jumping. The public will take care of the cat."
-Arthur Hays Sulzberger, "Time", On Journalists, May 8, 1950

You really claim that if Antiochus doesn't agree with all the opinions a guy has, he is not allowed to agree with even one of them? Amazing. Do you apply the same rule to yourself? That unless you agree with a guy to a hundred percent, your agreement with him on one topic is without merit? How so? How do you reach this absurd conclusion?

Oh, you were just pretending to believe that ludicrous line of reasoning, in order to avoid addressing the point Antiochus brought up? Ah, that makes more sense. But what a pity you didn't prove to be more intelligent. What a disappointment.
Sorry to dissapoint you Fredrik (it pains me so), but no, I don't think someone should agree 100%.

My point was, that since Nader can be so wrong about one thing, like gay marriage, he can also be wrong about Israel. Nader has an opinion. I don't agree with it. But Antiochus is telling me that Nader is 100% right on one thing, but 100% wrong on another, without saying why. It seems the only reason Antiochus disagrees with Nader is because he disagrees with Nader! Why is Nader wrong about Israel, but right about gay marriage?

My point was, that since Nader can be so wrong about one thing, like gay marriage, he can also be wrong about Israel. Nader has an opinion. I don't agree with it. But Antiochus is telling me that Nader is 100% right on one thing, but 100% wrong on another, without saying why. It seems the only reason Antiochus disagrees with Nader is because he disagrees with Nader! Why is Nader wrong about Israel, but right about gay marriage?Did you even read this Glex?
I'm just pointing out that a leftist like Nader can agree with a rightist like Pat Buch that there is a decided lack of freedom in the US to criticize Israel and that our national foreign policy is under the alien control of Israel. Aliens controlling the government=not free.

My point was, that since Nader can be so wrong about one thing, like gay marriage, he can also be wrong about Israel. Nader has an opinion. I don't agree with it. But Antiochus is telling me that Nader is 100% right on one thing, but 100% wrong on another, without saying why

*L* Your "proof" is funny. You say that a person's error in one area makes it possible for him to err in other areas as well. Does that mean that if you don't err in area A, it is impossible for you to err in area B? It makes no sense. Whether you err or not in one area is irrelevant to the other area. Don't know why you even brought that up.

"100% right on one thing, but 100% wrong on another". Has he said that? " Nader is 100% right about Israel, but 100% wrong about homosexual marriage?" You are doing the little Jew-like game again, that all Jew-lackeys have learned by now: you are building a strawman. By saying that your opponent claims something to be "one hundred percent true" you are making him sound arrogant, since we are inclined to doubt that anything could be a hundred percent true.

Ah, your little tricks don't work here. Only in your head.

"Without saying why"? Are you telling me Antiochus has to explain to you why he thinks it is possible for a person to be right in one thing but not in another? Yeesh.

No, I think you're just grasping for straws there, sorry. You brought up the homosexual marriage thing because you couldn't face what Nader said about Israel. You are desperately trying to evade that issue.

"the only reason Antiochus disagrees with Nader is because he disagrees with Nader!" That's just real lame of you. Why should Antiochus get started on a debate about homosexual marriage with you, when that's not the topic at all?

And for your information, homosexuals are allowed to get married. They are not discriminated against, the law is the same for them as for everyone else. They are just not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Neither are heterosexuals, in case you didn't know, so you see, the law applies equal to all.

Oh, did I say equal? I'm sorry. Whites are discriminated against in the law, since non-Whites are quotaed in to jobs and educations, whereas Whites are not. Same in Sweden. But I don't think you want to know about that.

Sorry to dissapoint you Fredrik (it pains me so), but no, I don't think someone should agree 100%.

My point was, that since Nader can be so wrong about one thing, like gay marriage, he can also be wrong about Israel. Nader has an opinion. I don't agree with it. But Antiochus is telling me that Nader is 100% right on one thing, but 100% wrong on another, without saying why. It seems the only reason Antiochus disagrees with Nader is because he disagrees with Nader! Why is Nader wrong about Israel, but right about gay marriage?

Glex lies in addition to distracts. Where did I say ANYTHING about gay marriage other than that it was IRRELEVANT? Glex assumes I'm against gay marriage to make this feeble, irrelevant point, and in putting words in my mouth he again exposes his cheap debating tricks.

and in putting words in my mouth he again exposes his cheap debating tricks.

That's all he got, so what do you expect? He doesn't know how to address your points, so now he's wriggling like a fish on the hook, just trying whatever he can think of and hoping it will sidetrack the debate enough.

Funny part is, he takes the time to come to a forum dedicated to topics he hates only to do this? He obviously isn't winning any debate, just making himself look ridiculous; hard to know what makes a guy like that tick.

Maybe he's one of those low level staffers at the ADL or SPLC or "Searchlight" that gets paid to scan our websites. That's about the only reason I can imagine. That or he's some wierd kind of masochist. Or a Jew perhaps mounting feeble attempts to disrupt. What do you say Glexstein? What motivates you to come here for a spanking?

The point of politics is to identify certain effects and to advocate certain causes. Nader, a leftist (Jello Biafra endorses him), has affirmed the right's position on Israel, which gives credence to our belief, (based on facts, rather than emotions - as with jooz - or dogma - as with Christians), that it is not in the US's interest to support the bandit state of Yisra'el to the extent of conducting foreign policy in its favour. Who said anything about "100% correct"? All judgments are based on weighing the pros and cons of a particular position in the light of putative facts and other's opinions about it.

Maybe he's one of those low level staffers at the ADL or SPLC or "Searchlight" that gets paid to scan our websites.
Took you long enough to figure it out! Geez, of course anyone who disagrees with you is a jew or shabas goy. How could it possibly be any other way?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to report to my jewish masters. They promised me that if I bring them enough IP addresses, they do me the honor of destroying me last. Hail Cthulhu! Hail Jews!

http://vnnforum.com/main/2004b/promoblackcopwhitevictim.jpg

Woman Arrested, Cuffed for Eating Candy

WASHINGTON - A government scientist finishing a candy bar on her way into a subway station where eating is prohibited was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours by transit police.

Stephanie Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

Willett, a 45-year-old Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) scientist, told radio station WTOP that the officer then followed her into the station, one of several in downtown Washington.

"Don't you have some other crimes you have to take care of?" Willett said she told the officer.

Washington has been under heightened security because of the continuing threat of terrorism. And last week, police declared a citywide crime emergency over rising juvenile crime.

The transit police officer asked for Willett's identification, but Willett kept walking. She said she was then frisked and handcuffed.

"If she had stopped eating, it would have been the end of it and if she had just stopped for the issuance of a citation, she never would have been locked up," Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson said Thursday

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040729/ap_on_fe_st/candy_bar_arrest_1
-------

Cops: Mayor's top aide ranted way out of ticket

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's top aide got out of a speeding ticket last month after berating officers and calling the police chief from her city-owned car, the officers said.

"I've had dope men treat me better," Detroit Police Officer Zack Weishuhn said of Christine Beatty, the mayor's chief of staff. Weishuhn told the Free Press his supervisor advised him not to ticket Beatty.

The June 21 episode represents another controversial run-in between Beatty and the department she oversees as Kilpatrick's closest adviser. Last year, she convinced the mayor to fire the head of police internal affairs, triggering a lawsuit that could cost taxpayers millions and that has raised persistent questions about the conduct of Beatty, the mayor and other staff members.

Beatty declined comment.

Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings said Wednesday she did not intervene on Beatty's behalf.

Beatty, who has a history of speeding, was driving about 15 m.p.h. over the limit on a rainy night when she zipped past a marked police car traveling on Livernois, according to interviews and a police report.

Weishuhn said he and Officer P.J. Tomsic interrupted their response to a routine call at 8:50 p.m. to stop Beatty, whose driving prompted another motorist to express concern to the officers.

When Weishuhn approached the window of Beatty's city-issued Ford Crown Victoria, he said she asked him: "Chew no who da *uck I izz, niggahh!?"

Weishuhn, who had just returned from the military, told the Free Press he did not recognize her. He said Beatty, a civilian, flashed a police-like badge but wouldn't show it a second time. She did turn over her license.

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/chris29_20040729.htm

Billboard Stands for Several Days over Vegas
NA sues Nevada sign company to put it back up.

2004-08-10 14:33:58
A popular National Alliance billboard boldly proclaimed hope to Nevadan Whites for five and a half days. But, it is no great surprise that a Las Vegas sign company has taken it down -- in total breach of its contract with the National Alliance.

An attorney has been retained and the local unit is suing to enforce the legal and binding contract. The NA attorney is a Freedom of Speech lawyer, although basic contract law is what the unit will win on.

The Las Vegas activists kept the matter quiet while the attorney negotiated for reinstallment of the sign. At this point, activists have directed their attorney to settle for the exact terms of the contract only.

So much for Sin City's motto that "anything goes!"

The court case is expected to last 60 days.



http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3398