Archive for June 7th, 2006

Conservative Failures

I love to make the point, over and over, that nothing liberals do ever WORKS.

Even O’Reilly has learned THAT line.

But I have a disadvantage. The usual liberal reply should be “Do conservatives ever admit THEY failed?” But every liberal knows that this gives the conservative the chance to outliberal him, and nobody is in a euphoria like a conservative who gets to outliberal a lib.

If a liberal says conservatives don’t admit failure, the coservative has his chance to roll on the ground, tear his clothes, and admit that he SINNED by opposing Saint Martin Luther the King.

Conservatives LOVE to do that. They get to swear they are more dedicated to ending the white race than liberals are. They have SINNED, and they are Truly Repentant.

I can’t do that. Nondiscrimination led straight to the genocide the NAACP said was its goal from the beginning. Martin Luther King said that God made a “constructive error” in making hte races look different,a nd it was our job to end it.

Saint King did ot mean this mistake happened in Africa or Asia. He was going to correct God’s error in America, Europe, and Australia.

He was, in short, going to ge rid of whites.

Our whole immigration disaster is the direct result of nondiscrimination. But conservatives denounce this result and swear their total allegiance to the cause of it.

I don’t have that out.

Let us return to the orgininal point. Liberals say they favor Social Experimentation. But you can’t call something an experiment if you never call any of your experiments failures.

When the present nondiscriminatory immigration law was proposed, the few opponents said it would lead toia third world wave of immigration. Senator Kennedy said, “If that begins to happen we will change the law.”

As the immigration tsunami grows, you would oly change this Social Experiment over the dead bodies of liberal senators. Which is hte way liberals always react to failures.

But, outside of the civil rights program that led to the present catastrophe, how can one say conservatives have admitted they failed?

My reply is that I would happy to admit that conservative policies have failed if anybody will tell me about a conservative policy. Conservatives have no policies, no policies at all.

Cutting taxes that liberals have raised is not a POLICY. Advocating a return to heavy criminal penalties which liberals have reduced to revolving-door prisons for habitual criminals is not a POLICY. It is ending a liberal policy.

Being anti-Communist is not a policy. The United States has always been anti-Communist. Liberals went to equating America and the Soviet Union. Pointing out that countries that have to shoot people who try to escape are different from countries that have to keep immigrants OUT is not a POLICY.

Somebody tell me a conservative POLICY. Then tell me a conservative POLICY that has been TRIED. Then tell me how it has failed, and I’ll be happy to tell you it’s failed.

But respectable conservatives have no policies.

What conservatives call policies are always aimed at attaining liberal GOALS. Many liberal goals are laudible, but conservatives offer “assimilation” of the minorities we have, meaning intermarriage with the colored who have already poured in. They argue that this will get rid of whites more effectively than the liberal hurry-up, open borders approach.

If he is not to be called the most dreaded label possible for a person who wants to be allowed on the national media, “racism” or “anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews” a conservative MUST offer a BETTER way to get rid of whites.

Conservatives NEVER challenge any liberal GOAL.

Conservatives have no GOALS of their own, so they have no POLICIES of their own.

I HATE rspectable conservatives far more than I dislike liberals. I HATE white race traitors, and I think non-whites are relatively innocent. They just want to make us disappear. As Faithful Colored Companions to liberals, they follow where they are led.

Non-whites would MUCH rather believe all their problems are our fault.

Who wouldn’t?

Non-whites are yielding to human temptations. White race traitors are a whole new brand of sicko.

The pint of this last diatribe is that I would LOVE to point to conservative policies that have failed. There just aren’t any TO fail.




I was reading a book that said in passing that George Washington couldn’t hve had any compasion because he was a fox hunter. The author said no person who saw what dogs did to a fox when they caught him could ever go fox-hunting again if he had any compassion.

After decades of arguing such points, an obvious piint hit me.

If that same compassionate person ever saw what a fox does to a rabbit every day of the week he would a fanatical fox-hunter.

I just pointed out that if someone says white people deserve to be overrun and miscegenated out of existence, one must nail them down on what they just said. They cannot argue that genocide against whites is not taking place AND that we deserve it as REVENGE.

Please note I made two crushing points here. First of all, I used the word REVENGE, which is indefensible. Secondly, I promised that I would not FORGET that they were JUSTIFYING genocide.

Pretty obvious points, once I come up with them. They show the anti is a vengeful retard.

But the average loser manages to lose the argument or, at best, come out with a draw. This requires the kind of talent that allows conservatives to lose constantly against people who have been proposing programs that led to catastrophes for generations.

The loser would respond to the argument that whites had gone to colored lands and colonized them by a display of his knowledge. He would argue that whites did more good than harm in the long run.

Or that they invaded other lands.

Or that THEY had slavery, too.

All of these statements are proper, but ONLY IN THEIR PLACE.

FIRST, you concentrate on genocide.

You KEEP coming back to GENOCIDE.

The loser never hits the other side where it HURTS. That is how one qualifies to be a RESPECTABLE conservative. A respectable always avoids points that would upset liberals, like reminding them that their last twentyproposals were disasters.

A respectable conservative has no memory at all.

Remember that the first thing I did was to warn the anti that I would not FORGET that he was for REVENGE as an excuse for genocide when he starts saying that he has no interest in genocide.

I back it up and repeat it every chance he gives me, and make my own chances. I am making POINTS, not showing him how bright I am.

Sometimes I make a mistake on purpose. I will bring up my Revenge versus “We don’t want genocide” argument” in the wrong place. They are so happy they get a point in! They says I am hitting them with that same old thing.

The purpose of htem is not to show them what a good arguer I am. The point is to make them REMEMBER that killing argument. As the conversation goes on, they know that that argument is onthe tip of my tongue.

When I throw it in where it doesn’t belong, I have told them I won’t forget it.

More important, THEY won’t forget it. They will be on guard about it from then on.

A lot of people who brag they would do anything to save their race are not willing to look a bit silly to save their race.

No matter what, I want the audience to REMEMBER the POINT.