While I suspect that Ron Paul genuinely believes in racial equality, I also suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton do not.
That’s just my suspects.
But I do know this: Ron Paul does not believe that white men should require nonwhite men to abide by their agreements. Ron Paul definitely has a bias regarding that. He believes that white men are subject to one standard and nonwhites to another.
Though he believes in racial equality, he does not believe nonwhites should be held to their word. In that, he is a solid supporter of the doctrine of political correctness in racial matters.
The proof of this is that he thinks that Mid-Eastern and Central Asian military bases established by white men at great cost and bloodshed specifically for the purpose of requiring nonwhite men to abide by their agreements should be arbitrarily abandoned and that white men should apologize and surrender to the nonwhite men in these areas and nations in contrition for the idea that the agreements that nonwhite men enter into with white men should be enforced.
It’s racist, of course, to require a nonwhite man to honor his word. That is Ron Paul basic operational view.
He also believes that Japan’s, China’s, and the Gulf States huge US T- Bond portfolios have been foisted upon them by greedy white men trying to cheat nonwhites out of their property, labor, and resources.
Accordingly, the similarity Ron Paul has with Chavez and Castro in characterizing the global deployment of US financial assets is quite evident.
I see it a little differently. I see these huge foreign portfolios of US T-Bonds as the winnings of corrupt nonwhite elites profiting off the American people by clinging onto the back of America like desperate swimmers hanging on for dear life to the strong swimmer in a rip tide.
Foreign holders gains on their US T- Bond portfolios have been quite handsome ever since the beginning of the big bond bull market in 1982, quite outpacing any US dollar devaluation they have suffered. But Ron Paul never mentions this as it conflicts with his ideology that white men are basically evil in their monetary dealings with nonwhites.
He likes to talk about the Chinese elites as being rubes who foolishly take mere “paper” from corrupt white men in exchange for real products, resources, and services (at the expense of American workers, of course).
White men cannot be benefactors according to Ron Paul’s ideology for they are basically selfish and evil, quite like our standard brand Marxists have it. Instead, white men always owe nonwhite men something in his view, quite substantial somethings, such as surrender, apology, military bases, other property, honor, you name it.
As long as white men are crawling, surrendering, paying damages, and apologizing, that’s all that matters to Ron Paul. For all of this, white men will get a tax break and be shielded from some currency depreciation in Ron Paul’s world.
Accordingly, his high opinion of white men is evident: White men will sell anything there is to sell for a few nickels. After all, a comfortable retirement is all that matters to white men. And they will sell anything and engage in any treason to get it. Ron Paul likes to call this, “believing in the free market and honest banking”.
And specifically forget the idea that nonwhite nations have to be forced to behave. In Ron Paul’s world, the only people that should be forced to behave are white people and white nations.
Everybody else gets a pass.
These are the real ideas of Ron Paul.
The American left is leading the assault on the undeniable exposure of race difference and on Israeli control of our foreign policy. The right is obsessed with cleansing itself of the Thought Crimes the right committed in denying MLK sainthood and limiting integrationist power.
No major American leftist goy has endorsed Europe’s Thought Crime laws. William Buckley has.
Dave makes it clear, again, that respectable conservatives are our real enemies today.
#1 by Simmons on 11/27/2007 - 10:13 am
To all the Paul supporters on the right I have one question, “Is it Paul’s view that white men should act and be submissive in nature?” Maybe its not the most focused question, but I think it deals with what the perjoratives of our time have tried to accomplish the defenistration of white men.
#2 by Tim on 11/27/2007 - 10:32 am
Dave,
Great post. I would like to hear your ideas on how we are going to keep bases all over the planet when we are only 15% of the planet. Furthermore, we can fly and sail anywhere a lot quicker now. And our ability for our military to travel will only get faster. What should we do about all these bases?
Your point about not holding non-whites to their agreements is fantastic. What would you do to hold them to their agreements? For instance, in South Africa they are not holding Africans to their agreements. And we all know the results. By the way, not only are whites fed up with this. Non-Whites are also furious (especially the Indian population–they are being exterminated as well). What approach would you take to correct this? Boots on the ground? Or just putting a foot down in Congress? We all know they are not going to listen until it brings consequences.
So if I were in office right this minute looking for advice on what approach to take. What advice would you give? And don’t say: “Tim, just put your foot down.” I know that. What are your ideas on these international issues we are obviously going to be dealing??
(Bob, you can chime in as well)
#3 by Tim on 11/27/2007 - 10:51 am
Simmons,
In my opinion, Ron Paul is a great example of someone who knows some of the truth (his quotes bear this out). But he is bound by Wordism. In this case, he is a Libertarian. Libertarianism is one of the most damaging religions to our race. He and his generation are worthless animals on this count. He is not White nor is he European …..he is an ISM. And this wonderful delusion gives other delusional White people hope that they can just believe the words of Ron Paul and everything will be ok. Utopianism. Wordism is Wordism and it doesn’t matter what the word is.
Ron Paul interest me in so much as the establishment hates him. His campaign interests me because it shows that the ‘traditional’ media that BW has dealt with his whole life…..is being dealt a death blow. That is the good news.
The only one that will carry our torch is US. We all know that. But there are nuggets to be gleaned from his campaign and how they are operating on the web.
So to answer your question in short. It is generational, they assume that if they act like Self Hating Fools then the rest of world will like them and they will get results. I see this with Chris Matthews (the typical SHWM and baby boomer). They act like Self Hating Sheep and the ‘establishment’ rewards it. We MUST punish this behavior the same way the establishment does. Verbal terror and financial punishment. We are already verbally humiliating them online we must get into position to punish financially. The good news IS they respond like confused sheep when you make fun of them and verbally abuse them for the same behavior that they are used to being rewarded for. When we can financially punish as well—-it will bring RAPID behavior modification or at least neutralize them.
#4 by unjew on 11/27/2007 - 11:32 am
Dave, I understand what you are saying, but:
*everyone in America is obliged to speak the right things*, or else. Without speaking the PC gospel he has no chance of accessing mainstream media at all. I’d draw conclusions about his real intentions an beliefs from little slips or omissions, rather than the obligatory ekwallity fellatio.
You cannot extract right answers from false data. And PC speak is false data – it’s something everyone does but no one believes.
Then being noble and straightforward and honest is commendable, but look where it got Adolf Hitler.
Look at the progress Putin is making, on the other hand. Noble? Nope. Working? You bet. Noblesse obligay, my ass. The end does justify the means. In jews’ world, you have to lie better than the jews, how else would you outjew them?
#5 by Hardric on 11/27/2007 - 11:41 am
RE: While I suspect that Ron Paul genuinely believes in racial equality
It is not possible to be honest, intelligent, and believe in racial equality.
#6 by Dave on 11/27/2007 - 1:15 pm
Tim,
I come from a very basic viewpoint on this stuff. Anglo-Saxon people have thrived and defeated many nations and many peoples throughout their history while doing a very admirable job of recovering from their own defeats.
This, of course, is a history that is not taught.
Now one thing that certainly differentiates most white nations and peoples is that white societies have been very successful in FORCING their populations to devote their energies to national purposes, INCLUDING their aristocracies, purposes not the least of which is a military that commands respect from the standpoint of being credible to adversaries (e.g, a combat experienced military).
America, in particular, has been quite successful, taking the banner from England in this regard after WWI.
We suffer from this in America, as so much of our energy and time goes to supporting a military that is continually engaged. It is rough to have to support national purposes that are for real.
Of course, that is what the Libertarians are essentially against, the idea that anyone should be required to support a real national purpose. That’s why they love the condemning phrase: “The Ambitious State”.
The Canadians, being essentially Europeans,for example, will broach nothing if any “ambition” actually costs them. They are far too in love with their comfort for that.
But I will not go into how much a lesser nation Canada is in comparison to our own (for to say that Canada is a lesser nation than America is to broach the meaning of understatement).
As BW says, there are two Europe’s, one in Europe and one in America (including that portion of Europe that calls itself Canada) but there is only one America: That is the America that is engaging itself in the world, fighting, defeating, hanging dictators, humiliating detractors, and so forth.
That is a rough America to be part of, but that is the America I want to be part of: the fighting, engaging, hopeful, and energetic Anglo-Saxon tradition where the idea of nation means something.
Libertarians, and many others, or course, find my sentiments repugnant.
It gets in the way of their conceit that nothing real should be required of anyone as a charge for being part of a nation. They are too busy serving their essentially religious ideas, ideas that let them off the hook in regard to accomplishing real things.
It just gets back to basics: You can either be loyal to words or to kin.
I choose my Anglo-Saxon kin.
#7 by mderpelding on 11/27/2007 - 6:15 pm
Bob, why haven’t your posters read your worldview?
Check out this gem:
“Now one thing that certainly differentiates most white nations and peoples is that Now one thing that certainly differentiates most white nations and peoples is that white societies have been very successful in FORCING their populations to devote their energies to national purposes, INCLUDING their aristocracies, purposes not the least of which is a military that commands respect from the standpoint of being credible to adversaries (e.g, a combat experienced military).
America, in particular, has been quite successful, taking the banner from England in this regard after WWI. , INCLUDING their aristocracies, purposes not the least of which is a military that commands respect from the standpoint of being credible to adversaries (e.g, a combat experienced military).
America, in particular, has been quite successful, taking the banner from England in this regard after WWI. ”
Quotes mine.
The AEF insured the loss of Germany in WW1. As a result,the French used African troops to occupy the Rheinland.
WW2;
Europe finally occupied by eastern savages. Something that they had failed to do for a millenium.
Korea;
Brave white males slaughtered to help Asians.
Vietnam;
Brave white males slaughtered to help more Asians.
Moogadishu;
Brave white males slaughtered to help blacks.
Serbia;
No brave white males slaughtered, only Slavic Christians.
To help Mohammedans.
Iraq and Afghanistan;
Brave white males slaughtered to help_______.
Of course, the financiers of these glorious “patriotic” wars always profited.
You know, Wall Street. And that private banking consortium known as the “Federal Reserve”.
Run by history’s “greatest living victims”.
A Quote within a Quote…
“Now one thing that certainly differentiates most white nations and peoples is that white societies have been very successful in FORCING their populations to devote their energies to national purposes…”
Baaaaahhhhhh….Baaahhhhh…Baaaahhhhhh.
One of your posters stated that modern white people have no loyalty.
I disagree. Men are by nature loyal. Because they think and discriminate.
The real question is “what are our men loyal to?”
And why does their loyalty lie where it is?
Enjoy the solstice.
#8 by Hardric on 11/27/2007 - 6:21 pm
RE: While I suspect that Ron Paul genuinely believes in racial equality
RE: It is not possible to be honest, intelligent, and believe in racial equality.
Let me slightly rephrase that.
[b]It is not possible to be intelligent and believe in racial equality.[/b]
If you claim to believe in racial equality, then my first assumption is that you are not being honest. If you convince me that you are honest and sincere, then my next assumption is that you are severely intellectually disadvantaged.
For the record, I believe the moon is made of green cheese.
#9 by Tim on 11/27/2007 - 7:09 pm
Dave,
By Anglo-Saxon? Are talking German or British Isles? There are some Anglo-Saxons in Europe maybe and some Germans you can call that in America. But the British Isles ain’t got that many…..at least according to modern science. Most of America’s core came from the British Isles. So by default we ain’t Anglo or Saxon but their cousins from the British Isles. Or at least, according to all the studies coming out of the British Isles.
Frankly, I don’t care. I just put white first.
And by the way, we will never be able to depose all the dictators. I only want to go to war if it is good for our race. I don’t see that many wars in the last 2000 years that have been good for our race. Definitely none in the last 300. Sorry, I agree with Mderpelding on that one.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with sacrificing for a nation (which was your point). So long as it is a WHITE nation. One of the problems with Canada and Europe is Nato and us carrying water for them. The Neocons in Washington love that we defend all our cousins. The Neocons use this to kill Europe. I don’t mind going to war if White children are in danger. BUT only if White children are in Danger.
#10 by Simmons on 11/28/2007 - 10:22 am
Dave’s posts are too unfocused. I mean if he were for Lebensraum then he should say so, but it sounds like he is for what exactly got us into this mess conquer the world then buy off the cheap help with a ticket to Disney (to look at the white women).
#11 by Dave on 11/28/2007 - 11:21 am
Mperdling and Simmons,
About my use of the word “force” in connection with “forced to support national purposes”.
One thing we can always count on regarding our nonwhite enemies and their collaberators. We can count on them to betray one another by stealing the public purse, if they at all have access to it. In Ango-Saxon countries the public purse is often wasted on nonsense, but it is very much less often outright stolen as it is elsewhere. At least, that has been our history up until now.
That is my meaning “force” regarding “forced to pursue national interests”.
#12 by shari on 11/28/2007 - 2:42 pm
Now, that, makes more sense,Dave.