JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #41
Which is racialism.
OK, we have Sawbriars pegged. He is loopy as Stephanie.
OK, we have Sawbriars pegged. He is loopy as Stephanie.
Is The Tea Party A Spent Movement?
- Thread starter Sawbriars
- Start date
Sawbriars
VIP Member
- Feb 18, 2012
- 1,113
- 55
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #42
Typical liberal tactic....label everyone something...everyone must be labled....yeh dats da ticket....sheer stupidity.heh heh
Irregardless.....here is something just for you chump>>>>>The myth of racism | Southern Nationalist Network
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #43
Nope, simply confronting typical sturmer tactic of labeling people.
You are labeler numero uno.
You will need to grow up, Sawbriars, but even your girl, Steph, has failed at that.
There may be a chance for you two.
You are labeler numero uno.
You will need to grow up, Sawbriars, but even your girl, Steph, has failed at that.
There may be a chance for you two.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,354
- 28,252
- 2,180
Sawbriars
VIP Member
- Feb 18, 2012
- 1,113
- 55
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #45
O.K. I don't have all night....obviously steph does not know or is unwilling to tell exactly what the tea party stands for....any other tea partier on here able to explain to this board exactly what the tea party stands for? I didn't think so. buhbyeeeee
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,354
- 28,252
- 2,180
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
You guys have to give Sawbriars a little gratis. He is up for election for Grand Cyclops....
Sawbriars
VIP Member
- Feb 18, 2012
- 1,113
- 55
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #48
Q. What is White Nationalism?
A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.
Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?
A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.
Q. Do White Nationalists seek to dominate other races?
A. Not at all. In fact, formation of a White nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others.
Q. Do White Nationalists seek to insulate themselves from competition from other races?
A. No. A separate White nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.
Q. Well if White Nationalists don't feel superior, don't want to dominate others, and don't seek protection from competition, then why would they want a separate nation?
A. To avoid exploitation.
Q. Exploitation? This is rich! So how is it that Whites are exploited?
A. It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for assaults committed by Whites if the motives might be racial. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.
But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States.
The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands.
If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.
Q. You claim that non-Whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren't you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?
A. Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or "White flight" away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-Whites. Aggressors don't flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, Blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a Black. Assaults by Whites against Blacks are approximately 40 times scarcer than they would be if races were randomly mixed and assault rates did not vary by race. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. White score low in this regard, non-Whites high.
The fact is that non-Whites are clamoring to enter this country in droves. Whites are fleeing en masse to formerly uninhabited areas to escape these new arrivals.
Q. But how can Whites be exploited when it is Whites who have enacted these racial preferences, the taxation, the welfare payments and set immigration quotas?
A. Excellent question! It is true that Whites are exploited by their fellow Whites. In fact, we do not expect any resistance by non-Whites to the formation of a separate nation. We expect White integrationist elites to resist. They are the ones who have a great deal to lose.
Q. If life in America is so bad for Whites why don't you just move back to Europe?
A. We are a majority. We do not have to move back. We can resolve to defend ourselves against this onslaught. We have the option of peacefully ceding lands already inhabited by non-Whites to separate non-White nations. We would save money, and could restore our civil liberties and free ourselves from constant threats of violence by so doing.
Q. What would your separate state look like?
A. The truth is we don't know yet. Our separate state would follow the geographic outlines of White flight. The model for this state would be the modern gerrymander created by the Voting Rights Act to create majority non-White congressional districts. We would simply cede these to a separate nation. The mechanics of this process will be explained more fully later in a post entitled "sweating the details."
Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?
A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that. The only restriction would be that those who would wish to recreate the present system by importing non-Whites and then encouraging their hostility would not be welcome. They would have to remain in or move to the lands ceded to the non-Whites.
Q. You are proposing that inclusion and exclusion be based on ideology and feelings. Won't your act of nation splitting turn into a witch hunt?
A. For White liberals it is definitely going to feel like a witch hunt! When the time comes, those who are guilty of "integrationism" should do the sensible thing and flee. It will spare us all a lot of pain.
Q. Is this White nation something that you intend to pursue right away?
A. No. The White nation is, by most accounts, about 20 years off. When the rest of the U.S. begins to look like Southern California it will happen more or less automatically, without much of a push from us.
Q. Why do you use the term "European-American?"
A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants, and we are not actually "White." The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify American Whites as "Irish" or "German" or "Italian." But more important, use of the term "European-American" is intended to recognize that White elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-White demands.
Q. What is White separatism?
A White separatists will agree on most points with a White Nationalist, except that he may not see a need to establish a separate nation within the present territorial boundaries of the U.S.
Q. What is a White supremacist?
A. That is a White who wishes to subjugate other races by force, ordinarily by military conquest. White supremacists are very rare and there is no visible trend or base of support which would allow them to carry such a political program into effect.
A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.
Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?
A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.
Q. Do White Nationalists seek to dominate other races?
A. Not at all. In fact, formation of a White nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others.
Q. Do White Nationalists seek to insulate themselves from competition from other races?
A. No. A separate White nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.
Q. Well if White Nationalists don't feel superior, don't want to dominate others, and don't seek protection from competition, then why would they want a separate nation?
A. To avoid exploitation.
Q. Exploitation? This is rich! So how is it that Whites are exploited?
A. It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for assaults committed by Whites if the motives might be racial. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.
But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States.
The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands.
If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.
Q. You claim that non-Whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren't you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?
A. Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or "White flight" away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-Whites. Aggressors don't flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, Blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a Black. Assaults by Whites against Blacks are approximately 40 times scarcer than they would be if races were randomly mixed and assault rates did not vary by race. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. White score low in this regard, non-Whites high.
The fact is that non-Whites are clamoring to enter this country in droves. Whites are fleeing en masse to formerly uninhabited areas to escape these new arrivals.
Q. But how can Whites be exploited when it is Whites who have enacted these racial preferences, the taxation, the welfare payments and set immigration quotas?
A. Excellent question! It is true that Whites are exploited by their fellow Whites. In fact, we do not expect any resistance by non-Whites to the formation of a separate nation. We expect White integrationist elites to resist. They are the ones who have a great deal to lose.
Q. If life in America is so bad for Whites why don't you just move back to Europe?
A. We are a majority. We do not have to move back. We can resolve to defend ourselves against this onslaught. We have the option of peacefully ceding lands already inhabited by non-Whites to separate non-White nations. We would save money, and could restore our civil liberties and free ourselves from constant threats of violence by so doing.
Q. What would your separate state look like?
A. The truth is we don't know yet. Our separate state would follow the geographic outlines of White flight. The model for this state would be the modern gerrymander created by the Voting Rights Act to create majority non-White congressional districts. We would simply cede these to a separate nation. The mechanics of this process will be explained more fully later in a post entitled "sweating the details."
Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?
A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that. The only restriction would be that those who would wish to recreate the present system by importing non-Whites and then encouraging their hostility would not be welcome. They would have to remain in or move to the lands ceded to the non-Whites.
Q. You are proposing that inclusion and exclusion be based on ideology and feelings. Won't your act of nation splitting turn into a witch hunt?
A. For White liberals it is definitely going to feel like a witch hunt! When the time comes, those who are guilty of "integrationism" should do the sensible thing and flee. It will spare us all a lot of pain.
Q. Is this White nation something that you intend to pursue right away?
A. No. The White nation is, by most accounts, about 20 years off. When the rest of the U.S. begins to look like Southern California it will happen more or less automatically, without much of a push from us.
Q. Why do you use the term "European-American?"
A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants, and we are not actually "White." The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify American Whites as "Irish" or "German" or "Italian." But more important, use of the term "European-American" is intended to recognize that White elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-White demands.
Q. What is White separatism?
A White separatists will agree on most points with a White Nationalist, except that he may not see a need to establish a separate nation within the present territorial boundaries of the U.S.
Q. What is a White supremacist?
A. That is a White who wishes to subjugate other races by force, ordinarily by military conquest. White supremacists are very rare and there is no visible trend or base of support which would allow them to carry such a political program into effect.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #49
A credo of racial lunacy.
Run along, Sawbriars.
Run along, Sawbriars.
Yes, the Tea Party will joint a long list of movements that have been a pressure point on the two parties. The GOP must consider attacking the Democratic stronghold, Hispanics, Blacks, and Female voters. What few people seem to grasp when they say America is to the right of center is that many democrats are to the right of center but are far from right wing extremist. In order for the GOP to increase their turnout out at the polls they must reach out to the center which includes both moderate Democrat and Republican voters which mean they must jettison the far right which includes the Tea Party.
Last edited:
Sawbriars
VIP Member
- Feb 18, 2012
- 1,113
- 55
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #51
The Real Reason Romney Lost
By Dick Morris on November 15, 2012
As the popular vote counts emerge and we move out from under the shadow of the media spin, we are learning the real reason Romney lost. The mainstream media is pushing the story that a massive turnout among minorities and the young drowned the white male vote as America changes its demography.
But the real reason is that the whites who supported Romney didnÂ’t turn out to vote. Just look at the fact, brought to my attention by National Review and Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, that Obama carried Ohio by 107,000 votes and that Romney got about 100,000 fewer votes than McCain! (2,677,820 for McCain v. 2,583,580 for Romney). Romney really lost by failing to turn out his base even as Obama was doing a very good job of getting his to the polls.
- Moderator
- #52
You are a liar. Obama has issued 162 Executive Orders since taking office.
- Moderator
- #53
You mean like the way you hate them?
- Moderator
- #54
When was the last time Dick Morris was right about anything?
Sawbriars
VIP Member
- Feb 18, 2012
- 1,113
- 55
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #55
Well...you do have a point there...but these election stats reported by The National Review and The Washington Examiner...cannot be disputed...they are valid. Romney lost simply because too many of the Northern and Midwestern Sectors of the White Working Class either did not vote or voted for Obama.
That is what the likes of Karl Rove and the fat cat elitist east coast mainstream republicans do not want the people to know....they are helping spread the media myth of the importance of the minority vote in hopes of retaining control of the Republican Party and maintaining the grip political correctness has on the Republican Party.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,354
- 28,252
- 2,180
Then GTFO of my country and go do it somewhere else. We don't need cowardly idiots like you around stinking up the joint. Give Antarctica a try.
Sawbriars
VIP Member
- Feb 18, 2012
- 1,113
- 55
- 83
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #57
Our founding fathers were Racist...would you also reject them?
Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist - 96.10
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #58
We would certainly reject racism of the Founders.
And sexism.
And much else.
We accept the goodness of the Founders, though.
And sexism.
And much else.
We accept the goodness of the Founders, though.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #60
Sawbriars, as a white nationalist, you are the chump, and you are and will forever be dealing with it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
“A free fall not seen in modern history": 100 days of destruction- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 8
-
-
India just attacked Pakistan, Pakistan said it will retaliate, will this lead to a major war? (Poll)- Started by kyzr
- Replies: 10
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
"The courts have all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they said, maybe you have to have trials"- Latest: John Edgar Slow Horses
