Lately, the controlled media has begun to mount a serious campaign of both disinclusion and disinformation about Dr. Ron Paul in his campaign for the Republican party nomination for the Presidency. This comes as no surprise. As the moment, Fox News (or more properly, "Faux News"), is attempting to exercise its usual standards of fairness by excluding Dr. Paul from the Republican forum it's hosting.
While this is enough to set one's teeth on edge, it's just a part-and-parcel tactic of the entrenched power structure. If they fail to televise him, they reason, he will lose any chance of success. They believe that he will be left to give lectures at colleges or on local radio, and be unable to muster any real support. Unfortunately for Murdoch & Co., the new Party-crasher, the internet, is allowing Dr. Paul to propagate a truly grass-roots base of support. The Matrix has holes. And from coast to coast, those pledge-days, such as the recent "Tea Party 2008", raise colossal sums of money for the candidate.
The latest salvo from the MSM news-distortion machines is that Ron Paul should be excluded because he "accepted money from white supremacists" [sic]. The website Stormfront.org and its owner, Don Black, gave a sum of money to Dr. Paul's campaign. Of course, the same media refuses to acknowledge that, for instance, Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from both the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, both anti-White organizations. And that same media suppressed reporting on the Whitewater/Madison S&L money-laundering, kickback and skimming scams of Sen. Hillary Clinton, as well as the sensitive U.S. military satellite technology that her Lothario husband sold to China in exchange for cash under the table.
In fact, White Racialists (please drop the "supremacist" nonsense, that tarnished silver bullet has no effect) support Dr. Paul for the same reason that anyone else who cares about this country does: because, in this time of government repression and mendacity, he represents a return to the values of the extraordinary men and women who were the Founders of these United States. These values resonate not just with any one particular group. But many who stand to lose their "favorite child" status are digging in against him.
For example, Dr. Paul is a privately religious man and an obstetrician by training, who is personally not in support of abortion. Many feminists have alleged that he will "do away with Roe v. Wade". In fact, they're right, but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong outcome in mind. As Dr. Paul has pointed out, the Constitution doesn't empower the federal government to rule on abortion. Per Amendment IX and X, because it's not granted to the feds, decisions about abortion laws reside in the individual States and the people who live in them. That takes the Supreme Court out of the mix as well. So the voters in each state decide, and some states may decide against. Thus in this case, the democratic process, which the feminists and other Leftists publicly support, enrages them.
Another case involves minority preferences and set-asides, such as affirmative action, HeadStart, "No Child Left Behind", RIF and others. There have been 50+ years of such programs and policies involving minorities. These are truly the clearest indication of the inherent true racism of the Left; the neo-Communists firmly believe that, without help from the White majority, minorities can not compete in the modern world. Their programs employ a reduction of excellence in order to create the "level playing field" these folks crave.
Dr. Paul, as a libertarian, believes that we must see each individual through their own merits or faults. He wants to put Martin Luther King's words into practice, judging people purely on the "content of their character". This Constitutionally-sound position says, we do not assume that people of a certain group are unable to function on their own, nor can we shower them with perpetual hand-outs and booster-seats.
This translates into an elimination of many policies now enforced by the feds. Non-White college applicants, for instance, would no longer receive preferences for simply not being White. This would have exactly no effect on many students. But it would ensure that the surgeon about to operate on your heart isn't there because he looked good on the school's diversity report and garnered them more money from the federal trough. Those who had the ability and desire to finish a college program would do so, and their degrees would again matter. Others would pursue trades, crafts, or other respectable work.
In addition, there is no Constitutional provision for unrestricted federal welfare payments. Those who stay at home and sponge would be forced to get jobs. As even Lenin finally admitted in a rare lucid moment, "those who do not work, do not eat". Again, most welfare recipients who are legitimately in need would remain covered, but responsibility for such programs would pass to the State and county level where voters could more closely regulate it.
Lastly, as President, Dr. Paul would take seriously his oath, his pledge to support the Constitution in all its aspects. And he would make this same requirement of Congress. One of their stated duties includes the use of "...the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, "Powers of Congress"). "Invasions" would most certainly include the unprecedented and illegal mass entry of perhaps 30-MILLION mostly Mexican criminal aliens. Whatever the reason for their presence, they constitute a de facto invasion force which directly threatens the sovereignty of this country and the "commonweal" of the American people.
Those and many other ramifications of a Constitutionally-based governance are the reasons that anyone who believes in the vision of our Founders, will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries and in the general election next Fall. And this even includes the proud White people so despised by the media.
Ron Paul's Campaign Website
Ron Paul's Myspace Website
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Disclaimers
All of us have watched TV commercials in which a truck is leaping across a ravine, or somebody is skateboarding on the interstate; in small type at the bottom of the screen we read, "Professional driver, closed course, do not attempt!". Disclaimers are, unfortunately, a mandatory element in today's world, worded in such a way as to stave off lawsuits and other liabilities.
But disclaimers are not limited to the world of commerce. People often use them in conversations, such as when we hear comments like, "Well, personally, I like Bill but...". They are often a preface to negative contexts, serving to provide a positive contextual backdrop to what follows. Another example of this is the phrase, "Some of my best friends are +[insert racial/ethnic group designator here]". Again, it sets a positive overtone to any subsequent negative statements.
The reason I'm bringing this up at all has to do with a group called "Heathens Against Hate". It seems that every one of their members must publicly post disclaimers about their faith and any related racial perspective. This takes the form of a comment such as: "I deplore anyone who tries to use [Odinism, Asatru, etc.] as a racist tool to harass or harm non-Northern European people!"
On its face, this is the equivalent of saying, "I hate people who beat up little kids". It's a statement designed to prevent argument. Obviously, no one could oppose using one's religion as a club to repress others, right?
There's a big problem with this.
One piece concerns social normative behaviors, the things we do because they are expected of us by "society". In this case, it's a pandering tool to reinforce White guilt. It is such a pervasive bludgeon that, even when not asked, many White people leap out of their chairs to proclaim their tolerance and love of everyone not like themselves. They have been pressured into this robotic behavior by decades of anti-White propaganda spewed by the media, schools and the entertainment business. To such people, and they form the majority of White culture at this point, any suggestion that anything might be set aside for ourselves, whether religious, cultural, athletic, academic or other area, is strictly verboten, as they say in the language of the German people. All things which White people seek to keep to themselves MUST be open to all, although the reverse is never true.
This societal dissolution of anything involving White cohesiveness has gained a lot of traction, and serves to reinforce the self-destructive behaviors many Whites stupidly accept as "progressive" when referred to by the Left, although called "lunatic" when noted by realists.
The real bottom-line is, only White people, that is, White heathens, must apologize for the tenets of their faith.
Christians never apologize for having tortured and massacred thousands of heathens and pagans while destroying those same native faiths, or burning women they declared "witches", or promoting unrestricted over-population in Africa, Asia and the "hispanic" world to fill their pews and collection plates, nor (in one branch) continuing to trust a community filled with unmarried pederasts to be role models. Nor do they see any dichotomy in believing in the words of peace spouted by Jesus of Nazereth, while bombing children in Baghdad.
Muslims don't apologize for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula, nor for their subjugation of women, nor for their repression of learning, nor for their militancy which has put them at odds with everyone else they've been in contact with for hundreds of years.
And lastly, what of the Jews? What of the zionists, who've displaced two million Palestinians so they could launch a permanent base of operations? What of jewish insistence that jewishness and Judaism are synonymous, even though atheist jews are still 100% jewish? What of their relentless attacks on public religious symbols of other faiths, from the cross to the crescent to pentagrams to runes? What do we make of their statement that they are "the Chosen People" of the Yahweh god?
Over its history, the native faith of Northern Europe has NEVER been used, per se, to beat up, subjugate or conquer ANYone. Our forefathers never tried to "convert" others at the point of a sword or gun, nor did they use our faith as an instrument of victimhood or sympathy, nor proclaim it the "one true religion". It was ALWAYS recognized as a regional, tribal religion tying US to OUR gods. It was always exclusive because it was always about our racial/ethnic FAMILY. And it still is.
If Asatru or Odinism were a faith of Africa, or South America, no practitioner would ever write a disclaimer. If it were out to make money from donations, or focused on conquering the internal operational systems of its host countries, or were on a steady march to force others to "submit", it would not publish such statements.
For myself, I refuse to kowtow to the politically correct, the timid or the passive-aggressive among our Folk who persist in disclaiming our history and our genetics. Their debasement of our principles, and their conflation of White unity, pride and heritage through our faith into some equivalent of "hatred" disgusts me.
But disclaimers are not limited to the world of commerce. People often use them in conversations, such as when we hear comments like, "Well, personally, I like Bill but...". They are often a preface to negative contexts, serving to provide a positive contextual backdrop to what follows. Another example of this is the phrase, "Some of my best friends are +[insert racial/ethnic group designator here]". Again, it sets a positive overtone to any subsequent negative statements.
The reason I'm bringing this up at all has to do with a group called "Heathens Against Hate". It seems that every one of their members must publicly post disclaimers about their faith and any related racial perspective. This takes the form of a comment such as: "I deplore anyone who tries to use [Odinism, Asatru, etc.] as a racist tool to harass or harm non-Northern European people!"
On its face, this is the equivalent of saying, "I hate people who beat up little kids". It's a statement designed to prevent argument. Obviously, no one could oppose using one's religion as a club to repress others, right?
There's a big problem with this.
One piece concerns social normative behaviors, the things we do because they are expected of us by "society". In this case, it's a pandering tool to reinforce White guilt. It is such a pervasive bludgeon that, even when not asked, many White people leap out of their chairs to proclaim their tolerance and love of everyone not like themselves. They have been pressured into this robotic behavior by decades of anti-White propaganda spewed by the media, schools and the entertainment business. To such people, and they form the majority of White culture at this point, any suggestion that anything might be set aside for ourselves, whether religious, cultural, athletic, academic or other area, is strictly verboten, as they say in the language of the German people. All things which White people seek to keep to themselves MUST be open to all, although the reverse is never true.
This societal dissolution of anything involving White cohesiveness has gained a lot of traction, and serves to reinforce the self-destructive behaviors many Whites stupidly accept as "progressive" when referred to by the Left, although called "lunatic" when noted by realists.
The real bottom-line is, only White people, that is, White heathens, must apologize for the tenets of their faith.
Christians never apologize for having tortured and massacred thousands of heathens and pagans while destroying those same native faiths, or burning women they declared "witches", or promoting unrestricted over-population in Africa, Asia and the "hispanic" world to fill their pews and collection plates, nor (in one branch) continuing to trust a community filled with unmarried pederasts to be role models. Nor do they see any dichotomy in believing in the words of peace spouted by Jesus of Nazereth, while bombing children in Baghdad.
Muslims don't apologize for their conquest of the Iberian peninsula, nor for their subjugation of women, nor for their repression of learning, nor for their militancy which has put them at odds with everyone else they've been in contact with for hundreds of years.
And lastly, what of the Jews? What of the zionists, who've displaced two million Palestinians so they could launch a permanent base of operations? What of jewish insistence that jewishness and Judaism are synonymous, even though atheist jews are still 100% jewish? What of their relentless attacks on public religious symbols of other faiths, from the cross to the crescent to pentagrams to runes? What do we make of their statement that they are "the Chosen People" of the Yahweh god?
Over its history, the native faith of Northern Europe has NEVER been used, per se, to beat up, subjugate or conquer ANYone. Our forefathers never tried to "convert" others at the point of a sword or gun, nor did they use our faith as an instrument of victimhood or sympathy, nor proclaim it the "one true religion". It was ALWAYS recognized as a regional, tribal religion tying US to OUR gods. It was always exclusive because it was always about our racial/ethnic FAMILY. And it still is.
If Asatru or Odinism were a faith of Africa, or South America, no practitioner would ever write a disclaimer. If it were out to make money from donations, or focused on conquering the internal operational systems of its host countries, or were on a steady march to force others to "submit", it would not publish such statements.
For myself, I refuse to kowtow to the politically correct, the timid or the passive-aggressive among our Folk who persist in disclaiming our history and our genetics. Their debasement of our principles, and their conflation of White unity, pride and heritage through our faith into some equivalent of "hatred" disgusts me.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Big Mother Is Watching You
MySpace Admits Censorship Of Prison Planet.com
Moderator says anything containing URL of website is filtered out
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 11, 2007
In a telling slip-up, a MySpace moderator has admitted that it is MySpace.com policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison Planet.com website, adding that the MySpace server automatically blocks such information.
Earlier this week MySpace was accused of censoring information pertaining to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign but the social networking site denied the allegations and later featured Paul’s profile on their main page.
But a deliberate policy to block Prison Planet.com has been exposed after a moderator unwittingly admitted the fact that Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website is filtered out from messageboards and bulletin posts.
In a discussion thread, a MySpace user complained that his Ron Paul post had been censored, to which a MySpace moderator responded, “Ron Paul wasn’t being censored, it was the prisonplanet.com part of the message that was being filtered out.”
The moderator later clarifies that it was beyond his control and that “prisonplanet.com” is on a list of URL’s that are automatically blocked by MySpace’s servers. The screenshot can be viewed below.
To be clear, moderators are not in the employ of MySpace but are invited to monitor message threads and delete off-topic material. The filtering of prison planet.com was not an act of any moderator but forms a deliberate policy on behalf of MySpace.
The excuse given is that prison planet.com is used so many times that MySpace’s servers automatically classify it as spam and ban it - but this is neither justified or believable. We have managed multiple MySpace accounts for well over a year and continually are forced to delete the same spam advertising and assorted trash that repeatedly finds its way to our inbox and on our profile comment board.
Why is this kind of material left alone and yet prison planet is banned?
Does it have anything to do with the fact that our involvement with MySpace was born simply as a means of exposing the fact that Rupert Murdoch’s social networking giant was an orgy of censorship and a trojan horse for the introduction of Internet 2?
This followed media reports in January 2006, shortly after Neo-Con ideologue Murdoch had bought the company for $580 million, concerning the fact that MySpace was deliberately blocking URL’s from rival websites and others they simply didn’t like. When thousands complained on a messageboard, MySpace simply shut down the messageboard and pretended it was a technical error.
If MySpace and Rupert Murdoch are that frightened of websites like Prison Planet threatening the corporate interests that sustain them, as with the bury brigade at Digg, fair enough - we have no divine right to appear on your website - but don’t lie to the people and pretend you are some kind of online democracy where free speech is encouraged and permitted - because it’s simply not true.
No doubt they will also claim that the censorship of Prison Planet.com - one of the foremost Internet critics of the same gaggle of Neo-Cons that Rupert Murdoch fronts for, is just a mistake or a technicality. What do you think?
Link to PrisonPlanet article here
Moderator says anything containing URL of website is filtered out
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, May 11, 2007
In a telling slip-up, a MySpace moderator has admitted that it is MySpace.com policy to censor and filter out posts containing links to the Prison Planet.com website, adding that the MySpace server automatically blocks such information.
Earlier this week MySpace was accused of censoring information pertaining to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign but the social networking site denied the allegations and later featured Paul’s profile on their main page.
But a deliberate policy to block Prison Planet.com has been exposed after a moderator unwittingly admitted the fact that Alex Jones’ Prison Planet website is filtered out from messageboards and bulletin posts.
In a discussion thread, a MySpace user complained that his Ron Paul post had been censored, to which a MySpace moderator responded, “Ron Paul wasn’t being censored, it was the prisonplanet.com part of the message that was being filtered out.”
The moderator later clarifies that it was beyond his control and that “prisonplanet.com” is on a list of URL’s that are automatically blocked by MySpace’s servers. The screenshot can be viewed below.
To be clear, moderators are not in the employ of MySpace but are invited to monitor message threads and delete off-topic material. The filtering of prison planet.com was not an act of any moderator but forms a deliberate policy on behalf of MySpace.
The excuse given is that prison planet.com is used so many times that MySpace’s servers automatically classify it as spam and ban it - but this is neither justified or believable. We have managed multiple MySpace accounts for well over a year and continually are forced to delete the same spam advertising and assorted trash that repeatedly finds its way to our inbox and on our profile comment board.
Why is this kind of material left alone and yet prison planet is banned?
Does it have anything to do with the fact that our involvement with MySpace was born simply as a means of exposing the fact that Rupert Murdoch’s social networking giant was an orgy of censorship and a trojan horse for the introduction of Internet 2?
This followed media reports in January 2006, shortly after Neo-Con ideologue Murdoch had bought the company for $580 million, concerning the fact that MySpace was deliberately blocking URL’s from rival websites and others they simply didn’t like. When thousands complained on a messageboard, MySpace simply shut down the messageboard and pretended it was a technical error.
If MySpace and Rupert Murdoch are that frightened of websites like Prison Planet threatening the corporate interests that sustain them, as with the bury brigade at Digg, fair enough - we have no divine right to appear on your website - but don’t lie to the people and pretend you are some kind of online democracy where free speech is encouraged and permitted - because it’s simply not true.
No doubt they will also claim that the censorship of Prison Planet.com - one of the foremost Internet critics of the same gaggle of Neo-Cons that Rupert Murdoch fronts for, is just a mistake or a technicality. What do you think?
Link to PrisonPlanet article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
