GOP=White People's Party?

[stivex]

Actually, it's the other way around: Hitler never posed a threat to the United States, and in fighting him, we got the rise of the USSR and communism around the world to contend with for half a century. Remind me how that was good, again?

Hitler should have been swallowed. Once he completed the take over of Europe, Germany would have been the super power in the world. Why would we want an oppressive, fascist, socialistic society as a super power? lol Also, why should we sit back and let him incinerate millions of Jews? IMO it is more wrong (morally) to allow that to happen.

 

[William Joyce]

Hitler should have been swallowed. Once he completed the take over of Europe, Germany would have been the super power in the world. Why would we want an oppressive, fascist, socialistic society as a super power? lol Also, why should we sit back and let him incinerate millions of Jews? IMO it is more wrong (morally) to allow that to happen.

Well, the post is veering off here, but

1) I don't know the extent of Hitler's territorial ambitions, but they did not include all of Europe. He basically wanted ethnic Germans, wherever found, to be part of a "Greater Germany." Not so different from Eretz Israel, huh? Yet the same chuckle-heads who kvetch about Germany don't say "boo" about Israel taking over the middle east.

2) Germany didn't "incinerate millions of Jews." Jews died at the hands of Nazis in WWII, but the "Holocaust" is a grossly exaggerated historical myth pushed on us all to make Israel's aims look just -- and white gentile nationalism look bad. Just as one example, the Encyclopedia Brittanica reported no more than five million Jews in all of Europe at the outbreak of WWII. So how did "six million" end up dying just in and around Germany? Hmmm.... There's a whole universe of literature on this topic. If you want to know how little the powers that be want it known, you can actually GO TO JAIL in Europe for "questioning the Holocaust."

For a good read on all this, check out Pat Buchanan's latest book:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/030740515X/forthecause-20[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

Every once in a while you make a good point, WJ. But then you fall back into the idiocy you posted above.

 

[editec]

Whites have gone from complete dehumanization of blacks through slavery to complete dehumanization of the THEMSELVES through black god worship.

It's all crazy.

You think that we Whites have dehumanized ourselves, William?

I mean do you really think that, or was that just hyperbole?

If not hyperbole, can you give me examples that you think support that claim?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, the post is veering off here, but

1) I don't know the extent of Hitler's territorial ambitions, but they did not include all of Europe. He basically wanted ethnic Germans, wherever found, to be part of a "Greater Germany." Not so different from Eretz Israel, huh? Yet the same chuckle-heads who kvetch about Germany don't say "boo" about Israel taking over the middle east.

2) Germany didn't "incinerate millions of Jews." Jews died at the hands of Nazis in WWII, but the "Holocaust" is a grossly exaggerated historical myth pushed on us all to make Israel's aims look just -- and white gentile nationalism look bad. Just as one example, the Encyclopedia Brittanica reported no more than five million Jews in all of Europe at the outbreak of WWII. So how did "six million" end up dying just in and around Germany? Hmmm.... There's a whole universe of literature on this topic. If you want to know how little the powers that be want it known, you can actually GO TO JAIL in Europe for "questioning the Holocaust."

For a good read on all this, check out Pat Buchanan's latest book:

Amazon.com: Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World: Patrick J. Buchanan: Books

6 MILLION murdered Jews and 5 MILLION others murdered in death camps and we are exaggerating and creating a myth? You are a poor excuse for an intelligent person.

 

[William Joyce]

You think that we Whites have dehumanized ourselves, William?

I mean do you really think that, or was that just hyperbole?

If not hyperbole, can you give me examples that you think support that claim?

Yes.

I think that the act of capturing and enslaving black Africans was, without a doubt, a dehumanization of that people, which in turn splashed over on us. We simply did not respect human-group boundaries that should have been respected, and the damage done was great.

I also think that we do the same thing today with affirmative action, open borders, etc. There, it's the opposite of slavery: WE REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE OUR OWN HUMANITY, our own right to exist as a people, our own dignity. We are totally cowed by the multicultural machine -- we allow it to walk all over us, make fun of us, mock us, use our resources, completely abuse our good-will and our friendliness. Hispanic invasion is a great example. These Hispanics know they can tug our heart strings with "we're brown and poor," but they are taking advantage of white kindness because they are not showing any respect to us, our language, our laws and our ways. They are just taking advantage of us, and WE are the ones who should be ashamed, if they will not be.

In other words, we condemn both murderers AND people who completely refuse to stand up for themselves.

Maintaining the middle path between these two extremes is what whites (and maybe all people) should focus on. Both are important elements of being moral beings, in my opinion. I think whites have struggled with this throughout the ages. We either want to kill, or offer our necks to be killed. Have you ever heard the phrase, "he's either at your throat or on his knees"? That describes whites, to me.

One way to help this situation is to respect natural human boundaries. Race is a primary and obvious boundary to me. That doesn't mean I don't support trade with other peoples, cultural sharing, etc. But life just works better when the different groups live their everyday lives amongst their own people.

 

[MasTequila]

Not all Whites. William.

There's a few that I think are okay.

Not many, of course.

Would those be your "House Whites"

 

[William Joyce]

Would those be your "House Whites"

Me likey this term!

It describes most of the whites running around in the halls of power today.

 

[ledzep23]

The sheer ignorance of republicans here is amazing.
Of course, blacks supported the GOP in the old days. The most racist folks in this country were southern democrats. Republicans were considered liberal northerners, while the South was solidly conservative democrat. Then things changed dramatically in the 50s and 60s. LBJ pushed for civil rights legislation, angering southern conservatives along the way (dems and dixiecrats).
The result? Them racist southerners flocked to the desperate Republican party, which was in disarray after LBJ won the 1964 election in a landslide over the segregationist Republican Barry Goldwater.
Is it a coincidence that Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and other southern states became republican for the first time ever in the 1960s and have remained so? In 1964, Mississippi went from 70% democrat to 86% republican in ONE election cycle! Don't you think it had something to do with the Civil Rights movement? LOL

Rice and Powell were appointed mediocre TOKENS to give an impression of inclusion (Powell) or because of friendship with the Bush clan (Rice)… At least the powerless Colin Powell had the decency to leave that sorry administration early. How many ELECTED minorities can you find in the GOP?

The GOP seized to be the party of Lincoln in the 60s and became a Goldwater/Thurmond/ Helms/Falwell/Duke/Limbaugh/Reagan/Bush diaspora. Why would blacks associate themselves with these kinds of people? Do you honestly believe that a man like Rockefeller would still feel at home in the current GOP? This is the party of Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln.

The funniest thing is seeing Republicans mentioning MLK in their bigoted arguments. Here's a man conservatives DESPISED when he was alive (especially William Buckley, J Edgar Hoover, Falwell, Reagan, Helms, Duke and others) but now that he’s safely dead they’re trying to claim him. Conveniently, McCain just apologized for the first time for his MLK holiday votes (there were multiple in AZ).

Sorry but you’re not fooling anyone.

 

[William Joyce]

Since MLK was advocating only for blacks, and no other group, would you consider him "racist," ledzep?

 

[ledzep23]

Since MLK was advocating only for blacks, and no other group, would you consider him "racist," ledzep?

Where did I say that he was advocating only for blacks? He talked about Natives and others suffering from this white supremacist society.
Were whites suffering from racist Jim Crow laws too? I sure didn't see them sitting at the back of the bus, getting beaten and lynched for trying to vote, raped or getting attacked by police dogs and firehoses, etc.

Here's an article by Perlstein about the conservatives pathetic attempt at rewriting history...


When Martin Luther King was buried in Atlanta, the live television coverage lasted seven and a half hours. President Johnson announced a national day of mourning: "Together, a nation united and a nation caring and a nation concerned and a nation that thinks more of the nation's interests than we do of any individual self-interest or political interest--that nation can and shall and will overcome." Richard Nixon called King "a great leader--a man determined that the American Negro should win his rightful place alongside all others in our nation." Even one of King's most beastly political enemies, Mississippi Representative William Colmer, chairman of the House rules committee, honored the president's call to unity by terming the murder "a dastardly act."

Others demurred. South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond wrote his constituents, ”[W]e are now witnessing the whirlwind sowed years ago when some preachers and teachers began telling people that each man could be his own judge in his own case.” Another, even more prominent conservative said it was just the sort of “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.”

That was Ronald Reagan, the governor of California, arguing that King had it coming. King was the man who taught people they could choose which laws they’d break—in his soaring exegesis on St. Thomas Aquinas from that Birmingham jail in 1963: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. ... Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.”

That’s not what you hear from conservatives today, of course. What you get now are convoluted and fantastical tributes arguing that, properly understood, Martin Luther King was actually one of them—or would have been, had he lived. But, if we are going to have a holiday to honor history, we might as well honor history. We might as well recover the true story. Conservatives—both Democrats and Republicans—hated King’s doctrines. Hating them was one of the litmus tests of conservatism.

The idea was expounded most systematically in a 567-page book that came out shortly after King's assassination, House Divided: The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther King, by one of the right's better writers, Lionel Lokos, and from the conservative movement's flagship publisher, Arlington House. "He left his country a legacy of lawlessness," Lokos concluded. "The civil disobedience glorified by Martin Luther King [meant] that each man had the right to put a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on laws that met with his favor." Lokos laid the rise of black power, with its preachments of violence, at King's feet. This logic followed William F. Buckley, who, in a July 20, 1967 column titled "King-Sized Riot In Newark," imagined the dialogue between a rioter and a magistrate:

"You do realize that there are laws against burning down delicatessen stores? Especially when the manager and his wife are still inside the store?"

"Laws Schmaws. Have you never heard of civil disobedience? Have you never heard of Martin Luther King?"

King was a particular enemy of Chicago's white ethnics for the marches for open housing he organized there in 1966. The next year, the Chicago archdiocese released a new catechism book. "One of the leaders of the Negro people is a brave man named Martin Luther King. ... He preaches the message of Jesus, 'Love one another.'" Chicago Catholic laymen, outraged, demanded an FBI investigation of the local clergy.

We know about the Chicagoans who hated King enough to throw bricks at him. We have forgotten that, while such hooliganism was universally reviled, the reviling establishment also embraced Reagan-like arguments about why that was only to be expected. Upon King’s assassination, The Chicago Tribune editorialized: “A day of mourning is in order”—but this was because civil disobedience had finally won the day. “Moral values are at the lowest level since the decadence of Rome,” the editors argued, but only one of their arguments was racial: “If you are black, so goes the contention, you are right, and you must be indulged in every wish. Why, sure, break the window and make off with the color TV set, the case of liquor, the beer, the dress, the coat, and the shoes. We won’t shoot you. That would be ‘police brutality.’” Another was: “At countless universities, the doors of dormitories are open to mixed company, with no supervision.”

The conservative argument, consistent and ubiquitous, was that King, claiming the mantle of moral transcendence, was actually the vector for moral relativism. They made it by reducing the greatest moral epic of the age to a churlish exercise in bean-counting. Shortly after the 1965 Selma voting-rights demonstrations, Klansmen shot dead one of the marchers, a Detroit housewife named Viola Liuzza, for the sin of riding in a car with a black man. Vice President Hubert Humphrey attended her funeral. No fair! Buckley cried, noting that a white cop had been shot by a black man in Hattiesburg shortly thereafter; “Humphrey did not appear at his funeral or even offer condolences.” He complained, too, of the news coverage: “The television cameras showed police nightsticks descending upon the bodies of the demonstrators, but they did not show the defiance… of those who provoked them beyond the endurance that we tend to think of as human.” (In actual fact, sheriff’s officers charged into the crowd on horseback swinging rubber tubes wrapped in barbed wire.)

By now you may be asking: What is the point of this unpleasant exercise? Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on ideological sins? Well, not every conservative wrong has been righted. It's true that conservatives today don't sound much like Buckley in the '60s, but they still haven't figured King out: Andrew Busch of the Ashbrook Center for Public Policy, writing about King's exegesis on just and unjust laws, said, "In these few sentences, King demolishes much of the philosophical foundation of contemporary liberalism" (liberals are moral relativists, you see, and King was appealing to transcendent moral authority); Busch (speaking for reams of similar banality you can find by searching National Review Online) also said that "he rallied his followers with an explicitly religious message" and thus "stands as a stinging rebuke to those today who argue that religion and politics should never mix"; and Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation wrote in National Review Online that "[a]n agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision" (not true, as historians have demonstrated). Still, why not honor their conversion on its own terms?

The answer is, if you don’t mind, a question of moral relativism versus transcendence. When it comes to Martin Luther King, conservatives are still mere bean-counters. We must honor King because there wasn’t a day in his life after 1955 when he didn’t risk being cut down in cold blood and still stood steadfast. Conservatives break down what should be irreducible in this lesson into discrete terms—King believed in points X, Y, and Z—but now they chalk up the final sum on the positive side of the ledger. But this misses the point: King alone among contemporary heroes is worthy of a national holy day not because he mixed faith and politics, nor because he enunciated a sentimental dream. It was because he represented something truly terrifying.

When King was shuttling back and forth to Memphis in support of striking garbage workers, Tennessee Governor Buford Ellington typified the conservative establishment’s understanding of him: He was “training 3,000 people to start riots.” What looks today obviously like transcendent justice looked to conservatives then like anarchy. The conservative response to King—to demonize him in the ‘60s and to domesticate him today—has always been essentially the same: It has been about coping with the fear that seekers of justice may overturn what we see as the natural order and still be lionized. But if we manage to forget that, sometimes, doing things that terrify people is the only recourse to injustice, there is no point in having a Martin Luther King Day at all.

 

[Gunny]

The sheer ignorance of republicans here is amazing.
Of course, blacks supported the GOP in the old days. The most racist folks in this country were southern democrats. Republicans were considered liberal northerners, while the South was solidly conservative democrat. Then things changed dramatically in the 50s and 60s. LBJ pushed for civil rights legislation, angering southern conservatives along the way (dems and dixiecrats).
The result? Them racist southerners flocked to the desperate Republican party, which was in disarray after LBJ won the 1964 election in a landslide over the segregationist Republican Barry Goldwater.
Is it a coincidence that Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and other southern states became republican for the first time ever in the 1960s and have remained so? In 1964, Mississippi went from 70% democrat to 86% republican in ONE election cycle! Don't you think it had something to do with the Civil Rights movement? LOL

Rice and Powell were appointed mediocre TOKENS to give an impression of inclusion (Powell) or because of friendship with the Bush clan (Rice)… At least the powerless Colin Powell had the decency to leave that sorry administration early. How many ELECTED minorities can you find in the GOP?

The GOP seized to be the party of Lincoln in the 60s and became a Goldwater/Thurmond/ Helms/Falwell/Duke/Limbaugh/Reagan/Bush diaspora. Why would blacks associate themselves with these kinds of people? Do you honestly believe that a man like Rockefeller would still feel at home in the current GOP? This is the party of Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln.

The funniest thing is seeing Republicans mentioning MLK in their bigoted arguments. Here's a man conservatives DESPISED when he was alive (especially William Buckley, J Edgar Hoover, Falwell, Reagan, Helms, Duke and others) but now that he’s safely dead they’re trying to claim him. Conveniently, McCain just apologized for the first time for his MLK holiday votes (there were multiple in AZ).

Sorry but you’re not fooling anyone.

Neither are you. The black vote began to shift to the Democrats with FDR, then again with Truman when he desegregated the US military. Civil rights just raked in the stragglers.

You're a bit all over the place with your MLK history as well. Was David Duke even BORN?

Hoover, Falwell, Reagan, Helms and Buckley are dead as well so I doubt they're trying to claim anything.

So WHO exactly is trying to claim MLK? Conservatives? Seems to me you're trying to take examples from the early 60s as representative of conservatives today. Neither conservatives nor liberals are now what they were then so THAT argument doesn't wash.

MLK was a leader of the civili rights movement. There's nothing TO claim. What he was trying to achieve was right. I wasn't aware one had to belong to a political party to be in the right unless you're just another political hack on here trying to push the holier-than-thou BS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Neither are you. The black vote began to shift to the Democrats with FDR, then again with Truman when he desegregated the US military. Civil rights just raked in the stragglers.

You're a bit all over the place with your MLK history as well. Was David Duke even BORN?

Hoover, Falwell, Reagan, Helms and Buckley are dead as well so I doubt they're trying to claim anything.

So WHO exactly is trying to claim MLK? Conservatives? Seems to me you're trying to take examples from the early 60s as representative of conservatives today. Neither conservatives nor liberals are now what they were then so THAT argument doesn't wash.

MLK was a leader of the civili rights movement. There's nothing TO claim. What he was trying to achieve was right. I wasn't aware one had to belong to a political party to be in the right unless you're just another political hack on here trying to push the holier-than-thou BS.

Ignoring all the while that the vast Majority of the Republicans in Congress voted FOR the act while the Democrats did NOT.

 

[editec]

Yes.

I think that the act of capturing and enslaving black Africans was, without a doubt, a dehumanization of that people, which in turn splashed over on us. We simply did not respect human-group boundaries that should have been respected, and the damage done was great.

Understood.

I also think that we do the same thing today with affirmative action, open borders, etc. There, it's the opposite of slavery: WE REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE OUR OWN HUMANITY, our own right to exist as a people, our own dignity. We are totally cowed by the multicultural machine -- we allow it to walk all over us, make fun of us, mock us, use our resources, completely abuse our good-will and our friendliness. Hispanic invasion is a great example. These Hispanics know they can tug our heart strings with "we're brown and poor," but they are taking advantage of white kindness because they are not showing any respect to us, our language, our laws and our ways. They are just taking advantage of us, and WE are the ones who should be ashamed, if they will not be.

I'm not entirely in disagreement with that complaint. I think it is a tad overstated, but there is more than just a grain of truth in it.

Yes, White America does have its own culture. In fact it has many unique White Cultures dpending on the enthic which dominates those enclaves.

And yes I do think that we need to protect those from being overwhelmed. But push that complaint too far and we close the door to this society changing organically, too.

America has always been a multicultural nation, and if you study the history of say New Amsterdam (now, New York) what you discover is that the most successful cities in America (at the time) were ALSO the most culturally diverse. Those would be Philadelphia and New York, incidently in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

In other words, we condemn both murderers AND people who completely refuse to stand up for themselves.

You see the problem you're facing with me, if start sounding like a White separatist is that my mother family wouldn't talk to my mother because she married a "foreignor".. well, he was actually Born in Philly, but he had a foreign (meaning not German or English or Welsh or even --god forbid!-- an Irish) sounding last name, so she was marrying beneath her station as far as many of her family were concerned.

Maintaining the middle path between these two extremes is what whites (and maybe all people) should focus on. Both are important elements of being moral beings, in my opinion. I think whites have struggled with this throughout the ages. We either want to kill, or offer our necks to be killed. Have you ever heard the phrase, "he's either at your throat or on his knees"? That describes whites, to me.

I think that this nation needs to accept immigrants, but not in such vast numbers that their integration into society totally upsets the structure of the existing society, personally.

Immigrants are a great thing, but too many too fast is hard on the existing society.

The USA already accepts more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined EVERY year.

Throw in the millions of illegals we seem unwilling to stop the flow of, and you've got a society undergoing a truly difficult transformation.

One way to help this situation is to respect natural human boundaries. Race is a primary and obvious boundary to me. That doesn't mean I don't support trade with other peoples, cultural sharing, etc. But life just works better when the different groups live their everyday lives amongst their own people.

I live in a practically all White society right now. Maine is 98.5% White and my area of Maine is more like 99.9% all White.

So while we seldom have any problems based on race, here, I can't honestly say the society I'm living in is very vibrant, either.

In fact it is disturbingly reactionary and repressive in many ways. Maine also has its tyranny of the ancients and is, AFAIC, eating its young alive. then these reactionary foggies wonder why none of the kids want to stay. Sort of cracks me up, that does.

So if you want to live in the last bastion of a nearly White (and old) society, Northern Vermont or Maine are the places you'll want to go.

There isn't much crime, but then too there isn't much worth stealing or all that much to do, either.

Pretty places, though, I'll give them that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Understood.



I'm not entirely in disagreement with that complaint. I think it is a tad overstated, but there is more than just a grain of truth in it.

Yes, America does have its own culture, and yes I do think that we need to protect that from being overwhelmed. But push that complaint too far and we close the door to this society changing organically, too.

America has always been a multicultural nation and if you study the history of say New Ansterdam (now New York) what you discover is that the most successful cities in America (at the time) were ALSO the most culturally diverse. those would be Philadelphia and New York, incidently.



You see the problem you're facing with me, when if start sounding like a White separatist is that my mother family wouldn't talk to my mother because she married a "foreignor".. well he was actually Born in Philly, but he had a foreign (meaning not German or English or Welsh or even --god forbid!-- an Irish) sounding last name.



I think that this nation needs to accept immigrants but not in such cast numbers that their integration into society totally upsets the structure of the existing society, personally.

the USA already accepts more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined EVERY years.

Throw in the millions of illegals we seem unwilling to stop the flow of, and you've got a society undergoing a truly difficult transformation.



I live in a practically all White society right now. Maine is 98.5% White and my area of Maine is more like 99.9% all White.

So while we seldom have any problems based on race, here, I can't honestly say the society I'm living in is very vibrant, either.

So if you want to live in the last bastion of a nearly White society, Northern Vermont or Maine are the places you'll want to go.

There isn't much crime, but then too there isn't much worth stealing, either.

He could always move to the handle of Idaho, then he would truly be home. Amongst all the white supremests that make that area home now. He could live his white only fiction.

 

[sealybobo]

He could always move to the handle of Idaho, then he would truly be home. Amongst all the white supremests that make that area home now. He could live his white only fiction.

GOP is the RICH party. They don't care what color, nationality, gender, sexual preferences, religion. They don't give a Fuuuuuuck other than are you rich enough to live next to them or not. Since most people that rich are white, it only seems that they are the white party. That and the KKK are Republican because of the southern strategy. But the real GOP probably don't like the KKK either. They just don't mind getting their votes. That's just a wedge issue, not a main issue.

Condy and Powell are the perfect example. They can go to any GOP event and be completely welcome. OJ was a good example before he murdered. He was accepted in any circle. It's all about green.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

GOP is the RICH party. They don't care what color, nationality, gender, sexual preferences, religion. They don't give a Fuuuuuuck other than are you rich enough to live next to them or not. Since most people that rich are white, it only seems that they are the white party. That and the KKK are Republican because of the southern strategy. But the real GOP probably don't like the KKK either. They just don't mind getting their votes. That's just a wedge issue, not a main issue.

Condy and Powell are the perfect example. They can go to any GOP event and be completely welcome. OJ was a good example before he murdered. He was accepted in any circle. It's all about green.

Again que the Twilight zone Music and play that opening part of the Outer Limits. BoBochimp has run out of tinfoil for his hat again.

 

[editec]

Well, the post is veering off here, but

1) I don't know the extent of Hitler's territorial ambitions, but they did not include all of Europe. He basically wanted ethnic Germans, wherever found, to be part of a "Greater Germany."

Tell that to the Poles, the Czechs, the French, and so forth. They might be inclined to tell you you have been somewhat misinformed.

Not so different from Eretz Israel, huh? Yet the same chuckle-heads who kvetch about Germany don't say "boo" about Israel taking over the middle east.

Wildly different, actually.

2) Germany didn't "incinerate millions of Jews." Jews died at the hands of Nazis in WWII, but the "Holocaust" is a grossly exaggerated historical myth pushed on us all to make Israel's aims look just -- and white gentile nationalism look bad.

Just as one example, the Encyclopedia Brittanica reported no more than five million Jews in all of Europe at the outbreak of WWII. So how did "six million" end up dying just in and around Germany? Hmmm.... There's a whole universe of literature on this topic.

I was given to believe that about 3M Jews died in the camps, and about 3M other people including trade unionists, Romani, homosexuals, Poles, severely retarded and on and on and on.

If you want to know how little the powers that be want it known, you can actually GO TO JAIL in Europe for "questioning the Holocaust."

The Germans are fairly serious about not allowing a cult of Hitler worshipping nitwits to take their nation over again.

Given what that drug addicted meglomaiac did for their nation, I really can't blame them.

For a good read on all this, check out Pat Buchanan's latest book:

Amazon.com: Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World: Patrick J. Buchanan: Books

It's on my list of books that I will read when I find time.

 

[William Joyce]

Where did I say that he was advocating only for blacks? He talked about Natives and others suffering from this white supremacist society.

Are you suggesting that black Americans were no more important a motivator for him than Native Americans?

That's absurd, and you know it.

MLK had blacks in mind.

Why is it wrong for me to have whites in mind?

 

[William Joyce]

He could always move to the handle of Idaho, then he would truly be home. Amongst all the white supremests that make that area home now. He could live his white only fiction.

Nice try, Sarge. Only, demographics show that wherever they live in the nation, whites OVERWHELMINGLY live with other whites. In liberal New York City, they cluster in parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, and in most of Staten Island. Same thing in D.C.: whites live in NW, not elsewhere. And these are "liberal" places.

I lived in Park Slope, Brooklyn for 7 years, and I can assure you: it was pretty white (and Jewish and Asian). Same with Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, Upper West Side, Upper East Side, you name it. There's a section of Brooklyn called Gerritsen Beach, and it's almost 100 percent white.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFDC143FF933A05751C1A9649C8B63

Surprised?