NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
My stuff comes from Your stuff.
I would like permission to use your
intellectual property.
Anything I say is my responsibility.
But…
I learned from you.
So, if a release is needed,
you have got my e_mail address:
mderpelding@epix.net,
or…
mderpelding@aol.com.
Thank you.
Comment by mderpelding
ME:
I have to be careful what I say here for legal reasons. You don’t have to worry about getting permission to use my stuff, even though it’s copyrighted. I don’t mind the COMMUNISTS using it if they don’t cut and paste or change it. But I’ll use their asses off if they quote me out of context for their own purposes or to damage me or for some other reason which from my point of view does me damage.
So don’t worry about it. If you are going to use huge slices of my stuff FOR OUR PURPOSES, which I sincerely hope you will, you do so not only with my permission, but with my gratitude. My problem is that this is done too little, not too much.
No, it only bothers me that any comrade would HESITATE to use my stuff. Even if you screw up horribly with it, the worst that can happen in a real world court room is that you would have to apologize. Our enemies use the legal system as a weapon against us. If I had their resources, I would do the same thing to them, but not to prevent them from having free speech, which is the way they use it against us. They need that, because they have no case. We only need to be allowed ot present ours.
So you don’t have to ask my permission for any or all of my material if you are honestly on our side. Only the copyright holder can make trouble, since this is civil, not criminal, law. And the only way anybody on either side will get me into court for any real damages is if they really, openly, honestly use what I say against me or mine. Believe me, you cannot do that without meaning to.
I wish I could give blanket permission, but, in any serious sense, anybody who is not a dedicated enemy of me and mine has it.
#1 by Peter on 02/10/2007 - 10:56 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Bruce says:
I’ve been thinking about your mantra approach lately. It has merit, but I think
your choice of wording is flawed. Basically, it has a 1960s ring to my ear that
hints a need for refinement. For instance, in the crowds I’ve been exposed
to, I just never hear someone use the exact term “race problem”. Perhaps in some
other region or other times they did, but I always hear about the need to solve
the RACE RELATIONS problem or the need for MORE DIVERSITY or a more INCLUSIVE
society. Those are the Pavlovian code words I hear constantly. I seldom hear the
slander of nazi get slung, but often hear the slurs of racist, bigot or xenophobe.
For the mantra to be most effective, it has to strike with all its deprogramming
effectiveness against the emotionalist code words actually used by the universities
and media. The following is my attempt to make a modern sounding paraphrase. Rip it
up all you want:
”Purveyors of PC “wisdom” love to talk about this RACE relations problem and need for “inclusiveness” and “diversity”. They use the dreaded slurs of racist and xenophobe against anyone who opposes wide open borders or the so called assimilation via the “melting pot” of intermarriage.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan ought to prove they are “inclusive” by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“The PC crowd in every white country says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am an evil hate mongering bigot.”
“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
“Those who scream “hate” the loudest harbor the darkest hatred.”
#2 by mderpelding on 02/13/2007 - 10:14 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
The reason we are ascendent instead of the Chinese,
with their superior IQ’s and all that, is that we
value Creativity over Conformity.
Creativity is predicated on valuing the abstract over
the concrete.
We don’t CARE about what is.
We CARE about what can be.
I ask for your permission because I might not
entirely agree with what you say.
But…
Your insights and thoughts are important to what
I want to say.
If I was a Chinaman,
I would parrot your statements.
CONFORM.
But I am a white/western man.
So I use YOUR thinking and my own.
To CREATE.
We as white people have been succesful because
traditionally we have been generous with our
thoughts.
Consider this when you seperate friend from foe.
Do you want accolytes?
Or men.