Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 14th, 2012 #121
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohgolly View Post
Thanks. Sorry for taking it for granted that you read it all before posting.
I probably should do that, but sometimes I get distracted and pick up at wrong place. I try to respond to every point worth responding to, in reasonable-sized posts.

Maybe I will start a petition to have French fries named the state potato form. Potatoes are popular in the Show Me state; French fries even more so. I feel many will join my crusade.
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #122
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I probably should do that, but sometimes I get distracted and pick up at wrong place. I try to respond to every point worth responding to, in reasonable-sized posts.

Maybe I will start a petition to have French fries named the state potato form. Potatoes are popular in the Show Me state; French fries even more so. I feel many will join my crusade.
I'll show you.

 
Old November 14th, 2012 #123
Donnie in Ohio
Switching to glide
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Morrison Hotel
Posts: 9,396
Blog Entries: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post

Maybe I will start a petition to have French fries named the state potato form. Potatoes are popular in the Show Me state; French fries even more so. I feel many will join my crusade.
Thus began the Russet Revolution.
__________________
"When US gets nuked and NEMO is uninhabitable, I will make my way on foot to the gulf and live off red snapper and grapefruit"- Alex Linder
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #124
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I probably should do that, but sometimes I get distracted and pick up at wrong place. I try to respond to every point worth responding to, in reasonable-sized posts.

Maybe I will start a petition to have French fries named the state potato form. Potatoes are popular in the Show Me state; French fries even more so. I feel many will join my crusade.
I always figured you Missourians to be more the tater tot sort of folks.
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #125
Jethro
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
You know...it's one thing to be naive and in your twenties. It's tolerable, even in the age of the internet, up through age 24 or so. But when you're in your thirties, it begins to become an intellectual or psychological defect. This election meant next to nothing, just like 9/10ths of them do. The truest thing ever said about elections remains the jewess-commie's deathless "if they changed anything, they'd be illegal."
I said before the election that if Yankees doubled down on Obama after Southerners overwhelmingly voted for two Yankees, even a Mormon Yankee just to get rid of Obama, that Southerners would lose confidence in the North.

Quote:
Regardless of which of these indistinguishable candidates won, the media were still controlled by the same anti-White jews, and the permanent bureacracy still worked night and day pushing the globalists' anti-White agenda.
History shows that it doesn't really matter who is running: Yankees always align with the blacks, not with Southern Whites. If the candidates were so indistinguishable, why did that same pattern predictably manifest itself?
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #126
Jethro
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
And remember it's you, not me, who has said he has no fundamental problem with the system as such, which makes your lack of enthusiasm for Ron Paul even stranger.
That's true.

The "System" is not the problem. The Union with Yankees is the problem. The reason why the Bay Area sends hardcore leftists to Congress is because the Bay Area is populated by a majority of weirdos and anarchists and freaks and fags and the "System" (aka representative government) inevitably selects hardcore liberals to represent that mass constituency in every election.

If you move further away from the Left Coast subnation in California, away from the areas where people like Greg Johnson live, you will find that the White people in Central and Eastern California are more conservative and always align with the South in every national election.

Don't you live near the Iowa border? Have you noticed that Eastern Iowa always votes against Western Iowa? What about Illinois? Have you noticed that Southern Illinois always votes like Kentucky?

I say there is an ethnic, a cultural, a religious divide between "White people." It predictably manifests itself in every election.

Note: BTW, you have admitted this yourself many times. How many times have you said there is an ethnic difference between Anglo-Celtic White Southerners and Germanic Midwesterners?
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #127
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
I always figured you Missourians to be more the tater tot sort of folks.
I thought Tater Tots disappeared with the seventies. I havent eaten them since school. They are tasty little buggers. They mature slowly, like Cheez-its. I feel many of the Tots immatured into Tater Delinquents. They have a larger, bolder flavor. Only a real man-mouth can quell their fiery spirit.
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #128
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
I thought Tater Tots disappeared with the seventies. I havent eaten them since school. They are tasty little buggers. They mature slowly, like Cheez-its. I feel many of the Tots immatured into Tater Delinquents. They have a larger, bolder flavor. Only a real man-mouth can quell their fiery spirit.
Excellent post Alex, now I have to clean the monitor again.
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #129
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Only a real man-mouth can quell their fiery spirit.
And, even then, only at risk of giving them cauliflower ears.
 
Old November 14th, 2012 #130
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
And, even then, only at risk of giving them cauliflower ears.
Use of his real name in the upcoming debate will prove to be the least of Jethro's problems.

Anti-Whites are going to be able to easily spot him in a crowd, regardless of his name.

 
Old November 14th, 2012 #131
varg
...
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
Anti-Whites are going to be able to easily spot him in a crowd, regardless of his name.
Yeah cause he'll be shaking their hands as a sign of respect.


Abandons jew criticism for the most part, has jewish friends, perfectly fine with the system as it is, votes for Romney while lambasting those damn Yankees. The battle over secession will be fought after unlimited breadsticks at olive garden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
As for Ron Paul, I voted for him in the 2008 GOP primary. I didn't vote for him in the 2012 GOP primary because he moved to the left on immigration. I don't get why WNs are so in the tank for Ron Paul now considering that his base are college hippies who support drug legalization.

Didn't he deny writing the newsletters? Didn't he say that MLK was his hero?
Clearly Romney was the better choice..

Last edited by varg; November 14th, 2012 at 03:28 PM. Reason: .
 
Old November 16th, 2012 #132
Ironguard1940
Senior Member
 
Ironguard1940's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,613
Default Bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironguard1940 View Post
Here's where you can find mine:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...erica/mv90W2s6

I need 149 for this to become visible.
Only 138 to go.
 
Old November 16th, 2012 #133
Jethro
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Marr View Post
Use of his real name in the upcoming debate will prove to be the least of Jethro's problems.
My position is simply that every racially destructive piece of legislation in American history has been launched in the Northeast and imposed on the South against our will. Therefore, dissolving the Union will solve the problem.

Quote:
Anti-Whites are going to be able to easily spot him in a crowd, regardless of his name.
I live in Alabama. The "anti-Whites" live in the Northern states.
 
Old November 16th, 2012 #134
Jethro
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varg View Post

Abandons jew criticism for the most part, has jewish friends, perfectly fine with the system as it is, votes for Romney while lambasting those damn Yankees. The battle over secession will be fought after unlimited breadsticks at olive garden.
1.) I criticize Jews when the criticism is justified. I do not believe that Jews are responsible for all of America's problems.

2.) I judge people as groups and as individuals. I have Jewish and Yankee friends.

3.) Yankees are the problem. The "System" is representative government. Blaming the "System" for Yankees voting for anti-White liberal Democrats is like blaming public schools for black academic achievement.

4.) I voted for Virgil Goode in Alabama.

5.) If anyone seceded from the Union, it will be Texas or the Lower South states. Yankees aren't showing much interest in seceding from the Union to create a White ethnostate.
 
Old November 16th, 2012 #135
Jethro
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 591
Default

Let's see you, vargina.

 
Old November 16th, 2012 #136
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro View Post
I live in Alabama. The "anti-Whites" live in the Northern states.
To the extent the anti-Whites you're referring to actually exist, they are at least forthright in their anti-White views, whereas you are either disingenuous, or sincerely confused, and you're as poisonous to White Nationalism regardless of which.

A part of you seems to understand that, or you wouldn't feel compelled to shake their hands in a show of deference.
 
Old November 16th, 2012 #137
Jethro
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 591
Default

I was shaking the hand of Jeffrey Imm ... the anti-White Yankee Methodist liberal who lives in Olney, Maryland who is behind Responsible for Equality and Liberty (REAL) and who succeeded in shutting down the 2010 Amren convention in Washington, DC.

Note: Jeffrey Imm is the epitome of the type of Yankee fanatic who is responsible for the racial and cultural degeneration of America. In this video, I name the Yankee and the Jew:

 
Old November 18th, 2012 #138
Thad Charles
Master Race
 
Thad Charles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: neo-Weimar JewSA
Posts: 1,568
Default

I didn't know we had the lead singer of Weezer posting on VNN

Sorry asshole, but your position is hardly outside of the mainstream. Putting your face out isn't going to get you fired from a job or ostracized by society. Not impressed.

It reminds me of when our resident guteater Exxon Valdez posted a video about Whites taking guteater land (not outside of the mainstream) and said something to the effect of, "Now show yourselves, you White pussies! You won't put your face to your beliefs!" Ah, yeah, idiot. Some courage you have posting a system belief. Whereas ours would get us in major trouble. If your opinion isn't going to cause some degree of shock, it means ZOG and its brainwashed populace don't see it as a threat. It means jackshit.
__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews
 
Old November 22nd, 2012 #139
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Official Left and Right Agree: Shut Up About Nullification and Secession


These days there has been a lot of talk of nullification – the refusal of a state to allow the enforcement within its borders of an unconstitutional federal law – and even secession. This is not allowed in the United States. We are supposed to let the New York Times dictate the terms of the national debate, and the Times has not indicated that these topics are on the table for discussion.

What kind of national health program we ought to have, how much the political class should expropriate us, or whether that foreign country ought to be bombed right away or starved to death first – this is how the Times prefers it. The debate is framed from the establishment’s point of view, and no matter how it comes out, the vested interests and the status quo prevail.

Then there are the conservatives and libertarians who likewise take their lead from the Times. Why, that issue you are raising must be "crazy" – after all, I don’t see Newsweek or the New York Times talking about it. Not even Rush Limbaugh, that bold ideological risk-taker, discusses your ideas, citizen! Are you sure you still want to advance them?

And so there you have the glorious American political spectrum – all 3.7 inches. What we laughingly call the "limited government" side of the American political debate plays by the rules of the pro-government party, so much so that when the chips are down one can hardly tell them apart. When it comes to people who want to raise truly fundamental questions, the two official sides can’t kiss and make up fast enough.

Secession is especially unthinkable. You might think the size of the political unit called the United States would be a practical question, not a matter of religious mysticism. But mention secession, or the possibility that the existing apparatus may be so big as to be dysfunctional even by government standards – propositions that are obviously within the realm of possibility – and you are treated like a heretic, if not a lunatic. Why, 103,671,742,065,706 square feet is the heaven-sent size of the United States, and not one square inch less! And anyway, they assure us, secession wouldn’t solve anything.

Wouldn’t it? Here’s just one thing. If the United States devolved into several smaller units, would they all have a Jacobin foreign policy in the Middle East? Would they all have made the disastrous decision to enter World War I? These are interesting possibilities, yet we are not even allowed to consider them. Stick to the 3.7 inches, citizen.

So the same kind of article you might read criticizing (for example) nullification or secession in Human Events or WorldNetDaily might just as easily be found in the New Republic. The two sides can’t kiss and make up fast enough.

Case in point: this article by Jarrett Stepman in Human Events, the "national conservative weekly." Now I myself have been published in Human Events now and again, so that publication is at least willing to consider dissenting voices – which is more than we can say for the Weekly Standard or National Review, for instance.

Here’s where the article gets fun:

Although there is a great temptation for conservatives, in light of the most recent election, to attempt to nullify federal laws and even abandon the union, it must be noted that those actions are unproductive, unconstitutional, have led to the destruction of two national political parties and one bloody civil war. There are far better options on the table, and more legal ways for citizens to resist the power of the federal government, ones that will not easily feed into negative media narratives about the conservative movement.

Straying from the rules laid down by the New York Times would be "unproductive," says Stepman. Compared to what? All those gains the official conservative movement has made over the past 100 years? Great Conservative Gains could be one of those gag books full of blank pages.

"Unconstitutional"? Stepman doesn’t even bother defending that one. I’ve been over this quite a bit in the past, so here’s the reader’s digest version.

First, nullification. The mere fact that a state’s reserved right to obstruct the enforcement of an unconstitutional law is not expressly stated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist. To expect such a thing is to misunderstand the structure and function of the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to establish a federal government of enumerated powers, with the remainder reserved to the states or the people. Essentially nothing the states do is authorized in the federal Constitution, since enumerating the states’ powers is not the purpose and is alien to the structure of that document.

James Madison urged that the true meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the state ratifying conventions, for it was there that the people, assembled in convention, were instructed with regard to what the new document meant. Jefferson spoke likewise: should you wish to know the meaning of the Constitution, consult the words of its friends.

Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be "exonerated" should the federal government attempt to impose "any supplementary condition" upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Virginians were given this interpretation of the Constitution by members of the five-man commission that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument. Patrick Henry, John Taylor, and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

Nullification derives from the (surely correct) "compact theory" of the Union, to which no full-fledged alternative appears to have been offered until as late as the 1830s. That compact theory, in turn, derives from and implies the following:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "free and independent states" that "have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states "retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence"; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to "retain" it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this point in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:

The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

Given these facts, secession is equally allowable, since this principle too can appeal to the original sovereignty of the peoples of the states. What’s more, since no power to prevent secession was ever delegated to Congress, and since secession is not prohibited to the states, it remains a reserved right of the states under the Tenth Amendment.

(The entirety of chapter four of my book Nullification is dedicated to demonstrating that the compact theory of the Union is correct; this is not so difficult a task, since all the evidence is on its side, but it is information no one learns in school.)

Meanwhile, Stepman never actually offers an argument showing us that nullification and secession are unconstitutional. He quotes a few people who opposed it. He seems to think a few quotations add up to an argument. There is no argument in his article, anywhere.

And who is Jarrett Stepman, exactly? Apart from being a writer for Human Events, which we already knew, his bio tells us only that young Jarrett "is a graduate of UC Davis, where he studied Political Science."

Jarrett was a good student, it would seem. No unapproved thoughts entered that head of his. The state structure approved of by all the moderns and all his professors, he approves of as well.

Stepman lazily and without imagination simply accepts the logic of the modern state, according to which society must be organized with a single, irresistible authority at the center. The idea that constituent parts could have prior liberties of their own that they might assert against the center is anathema not just to Stepman but to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and (with a few noble exceptions) the whole slate of modern political philosophers from Thomas Hobbes to Karl Marx. Stepman, like these thinkers, simply takes the unity and indivisibility of the state for granted. They and their horrific "one and indivisible" nonsense, meanwhile, gave birth to the single most destructive institution in human history, with the twentieth century as an especially grisly Exhibit A.

Unknown to Stepman is the humane, Althusian alternative to the modern state. (So as not to give poor Jarrett a heart attack, I withhold from discussion the radical Rothbardian alternative.) I discuss Althusian decentralism here. No, Stepman reflexively takes the central idea of modern Western political thought, shared by all major thinkers, makes it his own, and persuades himself that he’s cheeky and original, a real fighter against the establishment. He is in fact as conventional as they come.

If we dare to entertain the possibility that there may be models for organizing society other than the Hobbesian one in which all power originates from the center, and the periphery has only those rights the center graciously grants – why, we must be enemies of "America" and the "conservative movement." Well, if by "America" you mean a centralized imperium whose government operates without real limits, and if by the "conservative movement" you mean a group of careerists who get rich by sending out fundraising letters promising "limited government," then yes, we are indeed enemies of those things.

The doctrines of nullification and secession led to a bloody civil war, Stepman tells us. Again, our author’s inability to entertain a thought other than what he read in some textbook somewhere impairs his reasoning. The idea of decentralism did not lead to a bloody civil war. The doctrine of centralization, the un-American doctrine of the one-and-indivisible Union – the doctrine, in other words, of the modern state – led to a bloody civil war. So blinded is Stepman by his unthinking acceptance of the premises of modern political thought that he cannot even perceive the most obvious facts.

Note well: the secession of the Soviet republics did not lead to a bloody civil war. The secession of Slovenia did not lead to a bloody civil war. The secession of Norway from Sweden did not lead to a bloody civil war. There is nothing about secession in and of itself that need involve violence, as long as we are dealing with civilized people who understand that the best way to deal with political downsizing might not be to slaughter the people involved.

Stepman goes on to note that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which spelled out the doctrine of nullification (Stepman doesn’t mention the Richmond ratification convention of 1788), were "outright rejected by ten states, unmentioned by four others and met with suspicion in Virginia of all places."

I wish Stepman had at least bothered to read my book. Of the states that disapproved of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, all but one of them objected because they approved of the Sedition Act and incarcerating critics of John Adams, and they didn’t want states to be able to protect their citizens against these outrages.

Now why do you suppose Stepman doesn’t mention that little tidbit? Why do you suppose he won’t tell you that the people he’s citing for his case cheered the imprisonment of newspaper editors? Either he doesn’t know this, which I strongly suspect, or he doesn’t want you to know.

As for Virginia itself, Stepman couldn’t have read the discussion in the Virginia General Assembly over the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, or he would have discovered that whatever alleged "suspicion" of nullification in Virginia he remembers reading about somewhere did not in fact exist. The only real point of contention was over the phrase "unconstitutional, and not law, but utterly null, void, and of no force or effect" to describe the Alien and Sedition Acts. John Taylor believed the words following "unconstitutional" were superfluous, since everyone knew that an unconstitutional law was no law, and obviously void and of no force or effect. That was the big debate.

And before ten years had passed, the northern states themselves – the ones who were so outraged over nullification in 1798 – were appealing to what became known as the Principles of ’98. Actions speak louder than words.

Then we get the "James Madison was opposed to nullification" line. I deal with this on pages 288-290 of Nullification. Madison’s most recent biographer, Kevin Gutzman (James Madison and the Making of America, St. Martin’s, 2012), isn’t buying it, either. My reply is already running long, so on the Madison issue I refer the curious reader to these replies to objections I drafted nearly two years ago now. They have never been answered.

Finally, Stepman assures us there are lots of things we can do to fight against the federal government other than nullifying federal laws. Why, we can just, er, nullify federal laws! Stepman writes, "One way that states are resisting ObamaCare is through the Health Care Freedom Act, which has already been passed in many states. The law states that no government entity can force an individual to participate in the healthcare system or stop an individual from purchasing treatment."

But Jarrett, the federal government says it can force an individual to participate in the healthcare system, etc. Wouldn’t your proposed method of resistance be like nullifying the federal law?

Stepman closes with this: "If my arguments aren’t convincing enough that nullification and secession are dangerous to the conservative movement and the country, then I will leave you with an excerpt from the end of Sen. Daniel Webster’s debate with Sen. Robert Hayne at the height of the nullification crisis."

Now let’s be sports and leave aside the uncomfortable truth that at the time, Webster was considered the clear loser in the Webster-Hayne debate, whether we consider the reaction of the rest of the Senate, the press, or the public at large. Forget about that. Just click through and look at the quotation from Webster that Stepman chooses to end his article.

Stepman tells us that if he hasn’t convinced us of the dangers of nullification and secession, this quotation from Webster should do the trick. But the quotation he chooses isn’t even an argument! It’s just some rhetorical flourish by an orator. See if you can find an argument in it. There isn’t one.

In short, we are supposed to quit all this crazy Thomas Jefferson talk and get back to the task at hand: being losers who follow the same failed playbook the New York Times has been foisting on us for more than 100 years.

Some of us have higher ambitions than that.

http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods213.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 AM.
Page generated in 0.42876 seconds.