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

Old March 25th, 2014 #41
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,674
Jimmy Marr
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
did you change [lineMAKER] to linebacker
No.

My computer did, and I failed to uncorrect it.
 
Old March 25th, 2014 #42
Sam Emerson
Diversity = White Genocide
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
Posts: 2,800
Sam Emerson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
END PART ONE OF TWO
Great review, really nails Buchanan. I haven't been able to read him since I noticed neocon = Jew. Can't wait for part two.
 
Old March 25th, 2014 #43
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Thanks, Karl. You know, I have looked this up repeatedly, and I swear to you, I never see hondel/hondle anywhere, it's always handel. Lots of jews are named Handelman.
I am not surprised: Handelmann is probably just the name the Germans gave them and they adopted it as a surname as that was their primary function (such as it was) in European society.

Yiddish doesn't tend to translate literally into surnames as a rule of thumb, but the closeness of a Yiddish word to a gentile name or occupation usually means the surname is held to have a dual origin in Yiddish and the original German.

Quote:
I don't know how regularized yiddish is anyway.
Not massively, but it does have a system of recognized usage. That said it is a dying language anyway as it probably has its origins as a kind of argot (of which jews have several others e.g. Ladino [Spanish + Hebrew] and Leshon Hakmeh ['Language of the Wise']) to prevent gentiles understanding what the jews are discussing and saying. Now they have (modern) Hebrew (aka Sabra) there is no need to actually speak the language beyond using ideas and terms from it.

Quote:
But you're right, the dictionaries say hondel. I swear I've seen handl, but I may be wrong.
Handl is another way of spelling it from the 17th century with a slightly different connotation (if you ask me) see: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1...iddish&f=false

(The above summarizes the difference between the German and Yiddish conceptions of the term btw.)
__________________
 
Old March 28th, 2014 #44
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Emerson View Post
Great review, really nails Buchanan. I haven't been able to read him since I noticed neocon = Jew. Can't wait for part two.
Thanks...got delayed on that. I was going to cover all three aspects of his book, but I think the main value for us is if I segment out his treatment of the court, and how it has effected a social revolution. I guarantee this piece will be done sometime in the coming week.

Then after that, I'm going to review Bill White's book "The Tradition of the Mother" and then aftter that Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World. I really don't like Evola, but I"m going to give him one more go-round, so I can nail precisely where I don't like it. Mainly doing this because I run into so much alt-right or Traditionalist stuff on twitter. They are competitors with WN, as I see it.

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 28th, 2014 at 08:47 PM.
 
Old March 28th, 2014 #45
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Emerson View Post
Great review, really nails Buchanan. I haven't been able to read him since I noticed neocon = Jew. Can't wait for part two.
Yeah, exactly. But like libertarians, he's ok at interior decoration. Can crib some formulations and historical facts from him. We fuck him, not marry him - exactly as he would treat us.
 
Old April 9th, 2014 #46
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Ride Hard and Put Away Wet: How White Nationalism Should Use Pat Buchanan: A Review of Where The Right Went Wrong (2004)

Part Two: Social Revolution by Means of Judiciary


By Alex Linder [index]

April 9, 2014

In part one we didn't so much review Buchanan's book as Buchanan. We looked at where he fits in the political scene, what he means to whites. We concluded, per our title, we should rape him of his valuable points and clever formulations and discard him alongside the road like a used hippy chick. If that seems cruel, consider that it's exactly how he and his ilk treat us. No respect deserves repayment in the same coin.

In part two, we will analyze a portion of Buchanan's book, How the Right Went Wrong (2004), looking for things we can use as white nationalists. The book is ten years old, I hear you saying. "What kind of a nimrod reviews a ten-year-old book." Watch your mouth, pal. I want to say, in line with Dean Vernon, you'll get the answer to that question this Saturday. But that's not true. You'll get it right now. The reason the book matters and date doesn't is that the right has proceeded down same lines it was headed in 2004, which makes sense, given the same forces are in the same relation. The Republican Party leaders-slash-conservative-writers/talking heads/assorted opinionmongers are a bunch of no-good NYC kikes (or in line with them), and the party rank-and-file are the same usual religious mopes and patriotardical cannon fodder. Domestic revolution and democracy-crusading abroad continue apace, same as it ever were.

The book covers three areas: economic policy, foreign policy, and the role of the courts in effecting a social revolution. Jews, of course, pride themselves on being revolutionaries (outside of Israel, that is, in alien lands, white-man lands). Breaking barriers, they call it, when they destroy or revolutionize traditional and effective white intellectual categories, such as anthropology, or social traditions, such as sex being a private rather than a public matter. When jews enter a country, they buy up the media and move into academia and the law schools and teachers colleges, as these are the control positions. From them, jews can leverage their small numbers into great political power. They train the trainers, they teach the teachers, they write the lawbooks, they determine what goes in the textbooks, they select what stories to cover in the papers, they determine how their treatment. In a much shorter order than one might imagine, jews become the source of virtually every single idea that gets widely propagated. Of course, all the ideas they push advance their agenda and damage native whites. Once their control is broad enough, no one else can get an idea into the mainstream. Today, in the West, in 2014, their control, in virtually every nation from USA to Russia, is nearly complete. At least outside the internet, which, as a new communications technology, they have admitted caught them unaware.

We'll leave aside the half the book that covers foreign policy, because we talk about that stuff all the time, and we understand what's going on there: jews use American taxdollars to foment jew-useful wars and revolutions throughout the middle east and in Europe. Likewise, we'll leave discussing Buchanan's economic ideas for a different time. He styles himself an economic nationalist, and argues that the US grew great behind and because of a tariff wall. His ideas have been refuted by Tom Woods, among others.

The thing we want to focus on here is Buchanan's analysis of the way the courts, the Supreme Court in particular, have carried out a domestic social revolution against the wishes of the white majority. What jews want goes, what whites want goes wanting. Buchanan is careful never to mention that it's jews, their activists and judges and media, driving this social revolution carried out through the court. Punch pulling, after, is the heart of professional conservatism. Buchanan doesn't talk about jews immigrating to America between 1880 and 1920; how they bought up the media like New York Times and Washington Post; nor how they moved into and took over the Ivy League academic institutions and top law schools. Rather, he sticks to decisions the Supreme Court and other courts have made, their basis in law, and their effects on American society. Good stuff as far as it goes. But as always with Buchanan, he doesn't go far enough. The American political cover story about liberals doing battle with conservatives is good enough for him, and he doesn't delve beneath the surface at all. We will. That delving is the point of this review.

* * *

The court story, the judicial story, predates the jews. It goes all the way back to the legal founding of the country in the Constitution. The entire thing can be summed up in
Quote:
the court arrogating power, and the willingness or unwillingness of the people and their democratically selected representatives to stand up to it and either rope it in or take that power back
.

First, let's make sure you understand the term arrogate. It means to seize something illegally. To usurp it. Easy to associate with arrogant. The main thing seized here, arrogated, is the right to be the final and ultimate authority in deciding what the Constitution means. And then inflicting that raw and awesome power on lesser courts and The People.

Arrogate

Quote:
ar·ro·gate [ar-uh-geyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), ar·ro·gat·ed, ar·ro·gat·ing.

1. to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions.
The Supreme Court arrogated the final say in determining the meaning of the Constitution. It simply declared, on the basis of no legal authority, that it has the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution doesn't give anyone -- any party or body or person -- the power of being final authority, of final review, which means it's up to the various groups or individuals involved to decide for themselves if other parties have gone beyond the bounds of constitutionality. Now, in point of fact, the powers that be have found it congenial to support the Supreme Court in its interpretive arrogation of the right of final review. So a tradition has built up that in fact, yes, the Supreme Court has the final say. But it's merely tradition. It has no legal justification in the written words or intentions of the Founding Fathers. Thus, it can be disputed by any party with the balls to do so. It's akin to Khadaffi's "Line of Death" you may remember from decades ago; a line he arbitrarily drew in the Mediterranean sea and asserted authority on the Liberian side of. My international relations professor said of the LoD, it's not legal, but if people observe it, it tends to become that way, even if just de facto. So it is with the arrogating usurpation of the right of judicial review, as it's commonly known. But, again, nowhere in the words of the Founders is any right of the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of what is constitutional and what isn't. That is the key point you must take away from this review. Only you can keep the Supreme Court -- or any court -- within bounds (sticking to the law). If you are unwilling to do so, you may count on these courts becoming tyrannical, for that is the nature of men, and that is the nature of bureaucracy and political power.

Let's go a little more in depth.

There are four things white nationalists, and others, need to understand.

- the intended role of the Supreme Court;
- the role it arrogated
- the historical skeleton that is formed by the Supreme Court's (and certain other courts') most important decisions over 200+ years; and, finally
- what we can do about the court today.

All WN should understand these four, just so they have the intellectual backing to explain where their opponents have have seized power illegally. That's the main thing about courts - all of them, not just the Supreme. All courts are composed of men. And men don't necessarily follow the law. And, -- most important point here --
Quote:
there is no force save other men that can keep men called judges in line
with the law should they choose to depart from it. Other men are the only true check on judicial power. Plain words on plain paper aren't enough. If you don't grasp that, you're qualified only for patriotardism, waxing ineloquent about your love for a document that, like all of them, is neither self-interpreting nor self-enforcing, but must be interpreted and enforced through fallible, corrupt, scheming humans. Put not your faith in paper, white man. Put your faith in yourself and Team White. The only paper worthy of faith is toilet paper.

So that's the bottom line with courts -- all courts. All courts, all laws, all documents.

On the first point, the intended role of the court, the Constitutionally intended (expressly described and circumscribed) role of the Supreme court was for it to serve as the court of final review for disputes between the states. Disputes always arise. The states back then at the start were little or medium-sized independent countries, federated by the constitution, per signed agreement at the convention. The Constitution is probably better seen as a hammered-out compromise among mutually suspicious parties, and not two or three of them, but more than a dozen. The elegant wording shouldn't confuse folks to this reality, but of course the stars-'n'-stripey-eyed set can only see it as a hallowed parchment of fetish. They're called patriotards for a reason. . . . The Supreme Court was the body created to resolve such disputes as should inevitably arise between the states. This is a different and distinct role from being the body created to settle the very meaning of the agreement/arrangement the independent states put together in the first place. There is no such body for that. The Supreme Court is not chartered to go above and beyond the Constitution, only to enforce it in relation to state disputes. But when you're dealing with avaricious and dishonest men, this difference can easily be lost. In practice, unless the states are jealous of their power, they are going to lose it to prehensile courts and federal bureaucracies, which have the media and the army on their side.

But again, let's go over it till it gets between your ears. Who is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution? The correct answer is: No one. Or. Anyone who feels another party is acting unconstitutionally. Or. Anyone strong enough. You see? It's an open question. There can be no answer, as it's essentially an axiomatic problem. It must fall to the powers who created the Constitution to decide whether some man or body is going outside them, acting unConsitutionally, and it must fall to these aggrieved parties to vindicate their rights. And not necessarily through the courts! Probably not through the courts, since the ultimate court is the problem! But this requires intelligence, imagination and pluck, again, since the authorities tend to congeal around the false notion the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider for everything, and the media tend to conceal the legal/historical truth while bashing any threat to centralized power.

This-all is the political and practical reality of the thing. Not to mention that, of course, like any bureaucratic or political body, the Supreme Court is going to tend to try to increase its power over time, and arrogating the right to be the final arbiter on all matters constitutional, though it have no charter for such, is the first thing the court would see when it looked around; the sweet, delicious, low-hanging fruit just waiting to be plucked and eaten. For after all, just in practical terms, it's hard to raise up the manpower necessary to resist usurpations, once the dust has settled and the new federation is functioning, and the revolutionaries have gone back to their farms in the hinterlands. You see what I mean. In the heat of the revolution, everyone is jealous of his rights and his state's prerogatives since they've just kicked Britain's ass for trying to impose on them; but once the revolution is over, and things are settled and functioning under the new system, it's harder to recall the passions, to gin up the physical forces necessary to counter some party overstepping his bounds. It's just the way of things.

Nevertheless, no matter how dusty the desuetude into which the exercise of the right to reign in a rogue court may have become over 200 years, yet it remains there potent as it ever was, waiting for someone with the will to exercise it. If the Supreme Court acts outside the law, you are fully legally authorized to do whatever you feel it takes to reign it back in. If, say, the Supreme Court, ignores the constitution in order to force blacks into safe white schools, per the jew's anti-white genocidal agenda of integration, whites are completely justified in lynching any Supreme Court justice who voted to approve that agenda. It is that serious. The Founders to a man agree with what I'm saying - they just fought a revolution over this stuff. No man can go outside the bounds of the written law without exposing himself to retribution. If the people are too cowardly or too cowed to reign this black-robed monarch in, then they will suffer such misery as he cares to inflict. But they have every right to do literally whatever they need to do to obtain justice. That's not me saying that. That's the Founders' view. Of course the jew-owned and -operated media won't tell you this - it represents a potential threat to their tyranny.

The Supreme Court arrogated this power of ultimate constitutional review early. Not in 1980, 1950, 1910, but in 1803. Yet, again, for the tenth time, that arrogation has no legal basis. Its sanction is purely time and power, and these are informal and customary, rather than legal. So long as the politicians and media agree with the direction of its decisions, its right to make them will be treated as given; as inevitable and necessary and good as the sun rising in the east. So long as the courts pursue a leftist agenda, the press and professors will back then. They'll lie to their readers and students that this is how it's supposed to be; this is good. They won't tell you about your natural right to defend yourself and your neighborhood and your race from authorities who go beyond the law. They don't want you to know that, or to defend yourself. They just want you to shut up and do what they say.

Leftists know how much conservatives and religious tools respect authority and custom and tradition. They don't. But they know their opponents do. They have no trouble redefining or reinterpreting an old term or settled law to support their agenda. Once they succeed in that, then they've created a new tradition, and they gleefully remind conservatives of their bounden duty to support The Law (they've just subverted) in all its august glory. The left is very good at understanding its opposition and how to manipulate it. Thus you see illiberal judges making unConstitutional decisions that can only be enforced by conservative executives using conservative soldiers. Yet they do enforce it. Even when they know the court is misbehaving. And these conservative carriers-out, these executors of the unpopular will, shall we say, browbeat and gun-threaten the conservative population into going along with the new, unwanted, unvoted-for changes, because we must respect the law. One side cheats. One side doesn't. The side that cheats wins. The side that plays fair loses. That's reality. Until the honest men find some way of holding judges to their sworn duty, upholding the law, rather than rewriting it to their illiberal agenda, the judges will continue to misbehave. Continue to act like kings, foisting their minority agenda, their anti-white agenda, on the unwilling white public. In the old days, do you know what Americans did to judges who didn't follow the law? First, they threatened them. If they refused to comply, then they lynched them.

One more time: There is no law saying the Supreme Court has the right to determine what's Constitutional and what isn't. And when that Court starts making anti-white decisions at the level of forcing whites to race-mix with niggers, it is far beyond its bounds. But only white men with guns can force it back into line. That takes gumption. Gumption has been lacking in America for a long time.

In political life as in personal life, you get what you tolerate. That's the ultimate message to white nationalists here. If we, like christians, are willing to tolerate a tiny, anti-white majority, let's call them, I don't know, jews make the decisions that determine the conditions of our personal and body-political life, they surely will. History proves that. The geist and conditions of outdoor life at the time of this writing, in 2014, are completely determined by white-hating jews. The Constitution, written by white men, confirms free association in the Bill of Rights. Yet that same Constitution, interpreted by jew or leftist lawyers, somehow is interpreted to mean precisely the opposite! The judeocracy can dictate to you whom you employ, the conditions of that employ, whom you rent to, whom your bakery must bake cakes for. The words of the Constitution haven't been changed (remember Garet Garrett's revolution within the form which came up in part one), but the interpretation has done a 180. Today, you have "free association" as a guaranteed, gen-u-wine, Constitutional right, on paper,...but in practice you have forced...what? whatever the powers that be want to force you to do - race-mixing, deviant-sexual-behavior servicing, etc. Freedom remains in the words, but force is the reality. It's better for the ruling jews not to change the words; sitting there, they fool people - the type commonly called patriotards. People too dumb to see that the mere fact that something is written on paper doesn't mean it will be understood or enforced. This same type loves to yammer about 'God-given' rights, without ever noticing that God never defends those rights. Rights on paper don't matter if we can't exercise them in reality.

Just as under their jewish bolshevism in the USSR and Eastern Europe -- their vile, anti-white, hundred-million-dead jewish-communism -- in AmeriKwa 2014, only your private thoughts are free. It's one multiply-divided nation under ZOG. In the week preceding my writing this, the head of a large and important company was forced to step down because he disapproved of homosexual marriage. In that position, he was on the same side as the majority of voters. Yet he was forced to resign! Judges around the country, at this time, were simply ignoring what the majority of their state's voters wanted, even in the most illiberal states such as Massachusetts, and simply imposing their preferred morality, which is one that elevates sodomitic buddies to the legal level of a husband and wife. The courts thwart the democratic will of the people with diktats. The media back them. The people complain. But the decisions carry. Until people start treating judge and their anti-democratic dictates less respectfully, shall we say, this state of affairs will continue.

It's a straight-up test of manliness, really, how much society is willing to tolerate jew-controlled judges acting like kings. An effeminized society will tolerate anything courts do. They are Authority, the people are informed via tv and in top newspapers by duly licensed and degreed Experts. The talking nodding heads on tv assure us they have our best interests in mind, we adult children. In earlier centuries, we didn't think like this, we laughed at these clowns-with-airs, we threatened or lynched them when they went outside their bounds. Today, the very thought is unthinkable. Democracy is voting for Pepsi or Coke, not lynching judges! Everyone knows that! But that's wrong. Republican government means nothing if not the people seeing -- by any means -- that majority rule prevails. If it doesn't, then you have a king. Whether the king is a judge, a casino mogul, a media magnate, a president acting like an emperor - anything or anyone extralegally nixing the popular will in favor of a private minority agenda.

Judges are given special protection in today's society. Some of them are arrogant, thinking they are untouchable. Others are aware of their class and its usurpations, and the consequences these could bring. Most feel pretty sure they can't be gotten to because people are generally passive these days, consumers of junk food and sports and pornography, and they don't think or write or read or act much, and seldom in unapproved ways. If they perceive any particular threat, law-unabiding judges can always call for extra police and security, and they usually get it. The media are always on their side, so long as the judges are going outside the law to push the leftist agenda. It's a pretty cushy life, really, for these judges. They're doing something that takes no particular skill, after all. Anyone who can read plain law and is disposed to follow it can make the right decisions. A programmed computer could do what any judge does, and do it quicker and more impartially, which is to say better. Programmed computers can beat any chess player in the world, and chess is a situation that is far looser, in terms of options to be considered, than law-interpretation.

The Framers devised the Constitution to be clear. They gave the feds certain powers. They reserved the rest to the states, which were sovereign, except, again, for the ceded, enumerated, carefully defined powers.
Quote:
We're going to let you do these few things, because you need that power, but that's all you get. That's all you can do. That's as far as you can go. If you go beyond that, we will smash you.
That quoted block is the spirit of the constitution, which, again, is a compromise worked out between sovereign, jealous and mutually hostile/suspicious states. It is a not a charter for a massive centralized state and global empire, as we have now.

Any man disposed to follow the Constitution as written would have little problem doing so. But that's the rub. Men aren't disposed to follow written law, far too often, no matter how clear the meaning. Flesh trumps paper. This is what the Constitution lovers, who tend to be religious simpletons, can't understand, or can't accept. Anyone clever with words, like lawyers, can rationalize darn near any desired policy as a legitimate interpretation of any words. Throw in the media on your side, that's all you need. Yeah...it really is like that. That's not ever going to change, either. Put your faith in paper, you're going to get burned. The only one who can guarantee that your rights are respected, or vindicated, is you. Is us. Is we. No matter how eloquently and clearly those rights are laid down on the august scroll, if we don't force our enemy to respect them, he won't. Remember - the majority isn't on his side. He has no legitimate democratic option for taking power. He must cheat. It's a lot easier to capture the courts than fake election results.

* * *

The best and most useful chapter in Where The Right Went Wrong is the ninth: "The Abdication of Congress and the Rise of Judicial Dicatatorship." We know from our research at VNN, by Craig Cobb and I years ago, although unfortunately later lost due to faulty wiring, that jews absolutely dominate law schools, particularly the top tier. Of course, Buchanan will call them leftists, which they are, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is you have jews with a strangehold over the key judge positions, and you have other jews making apologies for them in the mass media jews control. Jews are always at the pressure points in any society so that any view they don't like can be demonized, and its main carriers defamed and discredited and destroyed. You don't even have to be against them overtly, you can simply be honest, and it's a threat. Honesty is anti-semitic. See Robert Bork, and how the jewsmedia destroyed him when he came up for a Supreme Court appointment.

If some tradition jews don't like has a long history, they chip away at it. They're patient. They think long term, not short. They may not be able to reverse cultural views of loose sex and deviant sex like homosexual behavior overnight, but they can over a decade or two. And they're getting better at social-engineering this goy-reversal through law and media and schools as they gain experience with new technologies. The campaign to legitimize homosexuals, as we saw in another thread, was accomplished in one decade, the nineties. That's pretty remarkable, when you think about it. Even as I write, the last day or two, fresh judges are simply issuing Diktats to their state legislatures to force them to legally acknowledge queer marriage, even if the majority don't support it. That's dictatorship. There's no other word for it. Judges operating outside the law are praised in the jew-controlled media. Far from receiving censure, professional or press, they receive praise. That can only exert a ratchet effect over time. I've mentioned before going to a law-school graduation ceremony and hearing the main speaker, the head of the state supreme court, tell graduating students almost in so many words that if they felt the law was wrong in their heart, they should simply ignore it.

I've said a million times, and will repeat a million more,
Quote:
jews are the only people who control the media - or need to
. That means that, as a tiny-minority position, jews must control the sense organs of society (the mass media) to have any hope of getting their agenda across. They understand this. It's why they move immediately to take over the media when they enter a non-jew society, whether the White west or the latest sliver of Muslim territory they're invading. Drench the locals in sex talk, in open porn, in masturbation and lesbians garbage, and soon they'll forget all about politics. That is what jews believe. That is what their experts (the Nazi-exiled academics of the Frankfurt School) say will work. That is the course they always follow. Hitler complained of it in Mein Kampf - the filthy jews polluting Vienna with their sex-dreck; his epiphany that every form of social corruption and morals pollution traced ultimately to the jew. At the same time jews mudwash the brains of the locals with sex, they throw open the borders to race-replace the natives they hate. Again, this is not new, this has been going on wherever jews have political control. Hitler, again, complained of this in Mein Kampf. The jews controlling France were sticking Francophone nigger troops into the Ruhr, with the aim of racially debasing the German stock. Same thing today in America. We know from Kevin MacDonald's research that jews alone (the alone is the part many dishonest pseudo-WN leave out) are responsible for the USA's reversed -- anti-White/anti-European -- immigration policy. The deliberate aim was to destroy the white racial basis of the most powerful country on earth because jews hated and felt threatened by a unified white nation. Look around you. Does it look like jews are succeeding? And again, they control the media that interepret everything for you. And the average person takes newspapers and tv and the mass media as legitimate authority, and finds it difficult for biological reasons to oppose it. Again, something jews well know. They are experts in knowing their racial enemies, how they think, and how they can be manipulated.

So let's see what Buchanan says about kritarchy - a word he doesn't use, but some do, which means rule by judges (as opposed to rule by legislature, or by written law).

He begins by quoting John Randolph to the effect that whoever interprets the laws -- without appeal -- is the sovereign. That is, if California votes not to give benefits to illegal aliens, and some jew/leftist judge simply throws the vote out, then that judge is the king, and the citizens are his subjects. And of course we've seen this pattern a thousand times - in pretty much every case where white votes succeeded in thwarting a judeo-leftist agenda item. Wherever by proxy the white majority stands up for itself in the ballot box, its legitimate, democratic vote will be denounced in the controlled mass media and soon enough reversed or thrown out by leftist federal judges. That is how things have operated in the US for decades now. Centralized leftist control of the US exists. It is anti-white, and the mass media wholly support and justify it.

The Gutlessness of Congress

Let's step aside for a brief excursus into the gutlessness of Congress these past few decades.

Buchanan's points:

- Congress has abandoned decision to war to executive, since Truman
- Congress has totally "surrender[ed]" its constitutional authority over trade. International bodies can and do now fine the US and repeal her laws. Binding us into a global world order is the intent and danger.

Buchanan says that all Congressmen care about is being reelected, because it's such a cushy job. Being reelcted means not offending people. It's better to give certain powers away to other branches than to make the (hard) decisions Congress is supposed to do per the Constitution. Let the executive puzzle out the details on trade treaties and budget bills, so long as the incumbent can escape responsibility for cutting anything some voter relies on. Let the judges make the tough decisions on abortion, or other matters where the voters are split. Then the Congressman can support or whine about the result - but either way, he's not responsible for what the executive or the judge does, and that's what matters most to him, since taking an actual stance costs votes where people are divided.

- the power to coin money was transferred to the Fed. We all know where this has led: private banks owned by jews get to counterfeit money legally, and pass on the new bills to their billionaire buddies at Goldman Sachs. This keeps jews in control while white earners' purchasing power is diluted through the inflation-theft the jews always practice. And justify in their mass media. As in other sectors, white adults are treated as children in a nursery school requiring jewish kindergarten teachers to manage them. We aren't smart enough to manage money, we need some thick-lipped Golub to take care of that for us.

Quote:
"Congress no longer wants the accountability that goes with the exercise of power. It does not want to govern. Both parties prefer to make only those decisions that will be applauded by constituents and rewarded at the ballot box, and to pass on to others decisions that deeply divide or roil the public."
Getting back to the courts, Buchanan says the 'imperial judiciary' revolution began in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education.

"In the name of equal rights, the Warren court had effected an historic coup d'etat. It had usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or the Constitution."

So, the feds have no legal right to control local schools. They simply took it at gunpoint. That is a good WN talking point. The judeo-System broke its own law to push its agenda. That makes it illegitimate. That makes it a dictatorship.

Segregation was legal under the 14th amendment. But certain people didn't like it, and wanted to end it. They did this by illegal judicial dictate. Eisenhower went along with the illegal usurpation. Of course, the media went along. The Southerners who resisted were demonized and crushed. All 100% illegally. The message, again, is that men will not be bound by what's written on paper, no matter how clear or eloquent. Men with will and weapons are the only guarantee, ultimately, that written law passed by democratically elected legislatures will be followed.

The left, as a congenital minority position, must of needs be all about power, getting it by any means it can, and then, when it does get it, forcing its minority agenda on others at gunpoint. This is the eternal political reality: the timid majority versus the fanatical minority.

We see today in Greece the same mindset at work: a pro-white nationalist party draws a mere 7% of the vote, and the System throws its legally elected MPs in jail. It simply decides Golden Dawn's majority-views should be illegal, and calls the party a criminal organization. The media back it up. How do whites react when the media, the judges and the entire System are run by people who hate whites? That's the question for our times.

Ok...so we know what people can do about judges - lynch them if they go outside the law. That's what has always been called our 'natural' right. We know how the Supreme Court was intended to function - to settle disputes between states. And we know that the SC has no legal basis for arrogating final review of Constitutionality. The only thing left to do is the spine: lay out the historical court cases that when taken together amount to a genuine revolution in law and society.

Buchanan does this laying out very nicely, in the ninth chapter, as mentioned above. Let's hit the cases. The important thing here, white man, is to know these cases so you can explain to people you talk to how this nasty society we see around us today was facilitated by a queered court system. We know the bigger picture, but it's good to have a handle on the specific court cases. There are not even a dozen over 200+ years, so it's pretty easy to learn them all and keep them in mind for political use. As we end this review, I will bullet good points Buchanan makes; points you should remember as you will find them useful in understanding how our country was broken apart by hostile powers.

- Congress is the dominant branch, by express intent of the Founders and understanding of the men at the Constitutional convention. it dominated before WWII; since then it has "colluded in its own dispossession" (p. 208). Why? I told you why, asshole, pay attention. Because making tough choices alienates people. Alienated people don't vote for you. Not voting for you equals losing office equals loss of access to delicious interns with perky nipples and pliant bottoms and the White House underground bowling alley and sweat-free gym and suchmore and suchlike and suchon. Let judges who can't be diselected make the hard decisions. Who cares if they have an anti-white agenda? You can shake your fist at them on your campaign stops. Then you'll have your intern and eat her too. Are you starting to grok the psychological situation that obtains these days, water brothers?

- neocons (jews) are "presidential supremacists and compulsive interventionists, impatient with any restrictions or restraints, constitutional or otherwise, on the commander in chief's authority to take us into war"

- GATT treaty puts USA under World Trade Organization (WTO), and grants it power to "authorize fines" on the US, and to "demand the appeal of American laws. This it has repeatedly done."

- power to coin money was transferred in 1913 to jew-owned Federal Reserve private bank. This is Congress yieldings its constitutional authority and responsibility to coin money itself. Rich private jews are allowed to legally counterfeit money, which comes out of the purchasing power of the earning white man's honestly acquired money.

- "On the issues of religion, race, morality, and culture that define us as a people, Congress has, for half a century, been surrendering its law-making power to judges and justices. The Supreme Court first seized these powers in a bloodless coup. It marched in and occupied the terrain because Congress did not defend it and would not fight for it." (p. 211) And of course the jew-controlled networks and newspapers backed the anti-white coup.

- members of Congress prefer the perception of power to the reality - let the unelected bureaucrat or judge take the heat for the tough decision. Leftists generally aren't pussies like conservatives. They like power and aren't afraid to use it to enforce their will. Even if a majority is against them. They know the majority are cowards, and won't do anything about it.

- the right is the numerical majority, but the judeo-left is the courage majority

- 1954: Brown vs Board of Education - Supreme Court "usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or the Constitution." "That the 14th Amendment did not outlaw segregation was obvious." Segregation is just an anti-white, illiberal term for one of the social choices resulting from free association - whites using their freedom to exclude dangerous, violent, feral, disgusting blacks from their private worlds. Segregation was legal, but the Supreme Court simply abandoned -- went outside -- the law to declare it illegal, because it wanted to force whites to live the way it told them, rather than the way they wanted and had the democratic and Constitutional right to. It would have been perfectly legitimate for anyone to lynch the Supreme Court members for going outside the law to impose their dictatorship on an unwilling public.

- the lack of effective resistance to the SC's coup emboldened it to enact a social revolution in the decades after Brown

- illegal usurpations (hence subject to the natural right of lynch law), to name a few, per area rather than specific cases: redefining pornography as free speech; creating new rights for criminals; imposing limits on state and local prosecutors; outlawing the death penalty (later reversed); declaring abortion a constitutional right; ordering both houses of all state legislatures reapportioned on basis of population alone (attempt to give browns/leftists more power); ordered VMI and Citadel to discard traditions it didn't like; abolished term limits on Congress; forbade Arizona to make English the official language for state business; ordered California to restore welfare benefits to illegal aliens even though 60% had voted to end them; approved racial discrimination against whtie students to advance "compelling state interest" of "diversity" in college; declared homosexual sodomy a constitutional right; declared the First Amendment protects the right of adults to burn the American flag, but prohibits children from reciting the pledge of allegiance to that flag

- the main case we discussed at great length above was:

- 1803: Marbury vs Madison. This is the case in which the Supreme Court illegally usurped power by claiming the ultimate right of Constitutional review. The chief justice John Marshall "asserted a right of review of all laws enacted by Congress to ensure they conformed to the Constitution." (p. 217) The truth remains there is nothing in the constitution that gives the SC the claimed power, it simply took it. It can be taken back. The moral and legal basis for it is unimpeachable.

- 1854: Dred Scott. This was the first time the SC used the claimed power of judicial review of Congressional acts per their compliance with constitution. The judge found the slave, Scott, had no standing to sue in federal court. This destroyed the Missouri Compromise worked out between and over free/slave states. This was essentially a 20th-century decision rendered in a 19th-century context, i.e., when men were less willing to be dictated to. You had a split country, divided over extending slavery to the new states being made out of portion of the Louisiana Purchase. The court enforcing a one-size-fits-all decree did not suit one of the two parties in the dispute. "[W]ith Taney declaring the entire Union safe for slavery, the Missouri Compromise was dead." Lincoln simply refused to obey it. Says Buchanan: "...Lincoln challenged John Marshall's doctrine of judicial supremacy as a mortal threat to democracy itself:

Quote:
...if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed byt he decision of the Supreme Corut...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
The point is not the particular decision, it's that the Supreme Court, in 1854, was trying to enforce a view on the entire country, on a significant matter in which the states and public were deeply divided. That's dictatorship. Democracy means they fight it out through representatives in Congress. And if that fails, through arms in the street. Judicial review is kind of like a referee determining dictating a game's outcome by micromanagement rather than simply calling fouls. The court is there to interpret laws, not create them, and though law professors and other charlatans of the tongue may insist these are these are the same, in practice it's pretty clear when the court is going over the line and into the territory that belongs to the people through their legislature.

- the standing temptation of the sharp minds that go into law must be to use their power to dictate their ideology. Particularly as their fear of being recalled by vote or rope recedes into mere theory. As judges lost their natural fear of man, their increasingly leftist views came to the fore. They began to impose their jew-trained anti-white ideology on the natives, with full media backing. This began with Earl Warren, says Buchanan. He was the leaders of the robed rogues who concocted 1954's Brown vs Board decision, and flipped America the bird by locating its basis in cant from an anti-white sociologist's doll studies, of all things. The decision was a way of saying to the majority public, we can do whatever the fuck we want, for whatever reason, and you're just going to shut up and like it. And if you don't, and you protest, we'll sic the national guard on you. And that's what happened.

We train judges how to act. They're people like the rest of us. If we let them get away with stuff, they get emboldened. If they receive praise and awards for usurpations, they're going to stay up past midnight thinking up new aggressions. Isn't this self-evident? "We teach people how to treat us," says Oprah or someone, and that fits here perfectly. Leftist judges who cross the line need to be roped in, by some means, or they will continue transgressing against white rights and white society. They've gone so long without experiencing any justice that most of them probably don't even conceive it as a possibility.

- the legal precedent the Supreme Court overthrew, quite illegally, in BvB, had stood for 58 years. Now that is genuine revolutionary activity. That is genuine usurpation of the legislative prerogative, indeed overt and stated responsibility. If the people don't want segregation, segregated public schools, they can instruct their legislators to do that. It's not illegal under the Constitution. The Supreme Court simply decided to take the law into its own hands, and issue an edict, like a king would. And then send men with guns to shoot anyone who democratically resisted. Thus America devolved into a tyranny. There was resistance, but it was overcome by physical coercion combined with media moralizing. An uncountable number of miseries have resulted from this anti-democratic, illegal Court ruling-usurpation. But you'll never read a single article about them because the people owning and writing the papers are on the side of the anti-white court.

In the 19th century, men were not afraid to tell the courts, even the Supreme Court, to go fuck itself. The most famous example of this came from Andrew Jackson, who famously said: "John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it." Eisenhower could have said the same thing to his hand-picked Warren after the Brown decision. He chose to do nothing, even though he disagreed. This was probably the point at which the Supreme Court began being treated as gods on earth. Again, the part Buchanan leaves out here is that by this time, mid-50s, you've got anti-white jews controlling the mass media - all three (and only three) television networks, and the two main papers, the New York Times and Washington Post. So long as the court makes anti-white decisions, the jew-controlled mass media will support it and defend those decisions, no matter how illegal, ridiculous and anti-white they are. Hell, Jackson took violent umbrage at something comparatively minor, given that Brown involved turning the school careers of white children into playthings for jewish social engineers. If anything, whites should have been angrier than Jackson was. And this first violation of their racial rights would be followed by more and worse discriminations and usurpations.

- "Seeing the Warren court seize such powers, lower courts began to push the envelope," says Buchanan on page 221.

- 1967: Judge Skelly Wright outlaws (desegregated) D.C.'s 'track system' for students, leading white students to leave D.C. almost entirely by 1970;

- 1968: Green vs New Kent County (Virginia): Warren court goes beyond "desegregation" to outlaw a "freedom of choice" plan that lets students decide which of two high schools to attend. "Where Brown had prohibited the assignment of students by race, Green commanded it." White students become pawns in the hands of anti-white social engineers. White students have their status reduced by the Supreme Court to the level of teaching aids for black children. The media back this. You can find thousands of articles about the educational needs of black kids, but nary a one about the educational needs of white kids. Again, this is judicial usurpation at the most egregious and offensive level, and whites would be perfectly justified in exercising their natural rights to self and familial defense in correcting matters.

- 1971: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (North Carolina): ordered the busing of white students out of their own neighborhoods to comply with some social-engineer's racial scheme. Again: white children are nothing but tools of social engineers, who may distribute and arrange them as they see fit to provide learning aids for negros. Whites are not independent agents and citizens, they are human resources to be used by anti-white illiberals. Green, like Skelly ruling, led to whites moving out of the zone in question.

- Buchanan makes the point that people hate being dictated to by judges, whereas they will tolerate decisions made by Congress. They can get at Congressmen by voting them out (altho elsewhere he points out this never happens) but judges aren't easily gotten to by strictly legal methods.

- 1978: California Regents v. Bakke: Supreme Court upholds UC-Davis' policy of discriminating racially against white medical school applicants. Justice Blackmun's quote: "In order to get beyond racism we must first take account of race. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently." Any form of anti-white hostility or legal discrimination will be justified in similar manner, as subsequent decades were to show. Whites, of course, are under no legal or other obligation to tolerate such treatment.

- 1979: United Steelworker v. Weber: Weber was a white discriminated against by a quota in a training program. He sued. He won on trial and appeal, then the Supreme Court decided against him. The 1964 Civil Rights law outlawed racial discrimination...except against whites. You see? The same thing is illegal when whites do it and mandatory when anti-whites do it. So says the court. Precisely what illiberal Humphrey said he would "eat his hat" over if it ever came to play, very similar to Kennedy's saying, around the same time, there would never be more than a few thousand coloreds involved if we race-reversed our immigration policy. When leftists and anti-whites, jews and ideologues, discriminate racially against whites, it's called equality. If whites discriminate in favor of whites, it's called racism, hate, discrimination, and it's illegal, save on private grounds in certain circumstances. Whites must endure this so long as they put up with it. Our country as currently instantiated exists to privilege jews and blacks and other non-whites over whites.

- 2003: The Supreme Court approves anti-white discrimination at Michigan Law School, for at least 25 more years. If the country exists then, demographics are likely to have shifted against the white majority, and it is unlikely this racial discrimination against whites will cease, it is likelier it will be strengthened.

Says Buchanan very aptly:

Quote:
The Left has found the Ho Chi Minh Trail around democracy. It has found the way -- through filing court cases with collaborator-judges -- to impose its views and values upon our society without having to win elections or persuade legislators." (. 223)
That will wrap it up. No branch of the government has the right to say what is or isn't constitutional - they all do. And so do the people who elect them. You get all the shit you're willing to take. That's the bottom line. So long as whites are too intimidated to stand up to the criminal usurpers, they will have to content themselves with being discriminated against by courts and government offices, brownbeaten in the papers, and beaten down in the streets to barely even bothering to raise a hand to shield its laughing approval. END
__________________________

P.S. This is a 20-minute interview with Tom Woods I came across the other day, it touches on the usurped right of judicial review, as discussed above. Well worth listening to.

 
Old April 9th, 2014 #47
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Really outstanding. Crystal clear, a pleasure to read.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old April 10th, 2014 #48
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
Really outstanding. Crystal clear, a pleasure to read.
Thanks, N.B.F., I appreciate your letting me know you read it. The review was repetitive, but I'm trying to grind in the key message: the anti-white left has been operating illegally for decades now. It follows no law, it operates on the basis of pure power politics: we do this to you (evil racist whites) because we can.

Last edited by Alex Linder; April 10th, 2014 at 07:31 AM.
 
Old May 22nd, 2014 #49
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Book Notes

by Alex Linder
[index]

May 21, 2014

A Texan Looks at Lyndon (1964), by J. Evetts Haley

A study in illegitimate government, this "cowman and historian's" book really highlights what a corrupt, murderous bastard LBJ really was. Nothing but ballot stuffing, records burning, cronyism and murder as far as the eye can see, from jerkwater Texas to the White House. I'd guess this short book of 250 tight pages gives you more insight into LBJ's real character than that massive and celebrated tome put out by Caro years ago. Bottom line with Johnson: he had no principles other than amassing power, and he had absolutely no reservations whatsoever about using it, unlike most. He is a perfect example of the unfortunate truth that power goes to those willing to use any low means to get it. Those who like power and want it and glory in it are likeliest to get it - yet the very worst type to hold it. Thank the God of Irony, again, who created things this way, if you go in for that flavor of nostrumic mentation.

The Case Against The Fed (1994), by jew Murray Rothbard

Explains that the Fed, in the guise of fighting inflation, is the sole cause of it. Traces the history of the cartelization of banking in the US, with the underlying motive that a system such as we have now allows the maximization of profits through legal counterfeiting. Does this all in a scant 100 pages. I had to take many econ classes in college, and this short book is worth all of them put together times ten. Economics is a controlled profession, in that college and trade publications simply don't hire those who tell the truth about the Fed.

The Casual Vacancy (2012), by J.K. Rowling

A fiction for adults by the Harry Potter author. It's very good - Rowling is skilled at delineating characters. Far abler than most pop fiction writers.. I didn't like this one quite as much as The Cuckoo's Calling (2013), which is a more interesting story, but it's still quite good. Concerns the various operations and motivations of a raft of small-town characters in England in the aftermath of the unexpected decease of a town board member. You really see from Rowling how much of women's interior lives are devoted to getting back at other women, or to needling, making digs at pretty much everyone. Then again, no one, man, woman or teen, comes off well in this book. There is some disgusting political correctness, but on the whole, the characters are well diffentiated and quite real in the sense that they are all reasonably motivated individual people.

The Pale King (2011), by David Foster Wallace.

Unfinished when DFW hanged himself. Not bad. Changed my opinion of him. He went to elite college, wrote papers for rich kids. Got kicked out for a year, spent it working in an IRS department. This book is about that, thinly veiled biography with a thematic focus on boredom. Has one or two really good set pieces, most notably when his character walks into the wrong room and hears a professor lecture larval CPAs on the true heroism in their profession, perorating with..."Gentlemen...you are called to account." Definitely some good stuff in this book. Very long at over 700 pages, as is DFW's way. To me, it's like he's trying to do what tiresome Thomas Pynchon did in, say, The Crying of Lot 49, but he's better at it. Not a great writer, for all the claims of genius, but decent enough. Somewhat interesting now and then, uses lots of different words. I don't exactly recommend this book, try his essays if you want something shorter and decent, but there are plenty of worse books than this if you're looking for recent fiction.

Revolt Against the Modern World (1969), by Julius Evola

I tried for a second time to get this guy, but I just can't get on the same page. I can't escape the feeling his arguments are simply for his own preferred social arrangement, yet he's trying to pass them off as science. Like Marx, but from a Right-wing, Middle Ages perspective. Not that he's christian, he's not. He wants a return to when kings were seen as sort of living bridges to the Gods, and all society was magnetized in the same direction, like iron filings. I have my doubts such society as he describes and desires ever existed; nor do I think it desirable to return to even if we could. It's just funny how much he can downtalk science and material progress while insisting on the scientific reality of this multi-stage cycle of human history, of which we are living in the stage of Kali Yuga, the age of destruction. Well, me personally, I'm living in the age of eye roll. The very best part of the book is his description of the mentality of modern women, which I have posted here in the books subforum in the excerpts sticky thread.

Traditions of the Mother (2012), by Bill White

Have to have a background in philology, comparative religion and mythology truly to judge this book. Not particularly interesting or useful to me, certainly not by comparison with his other book Centuries of Revolution, which tracks some of the same ground as E. Michael Jones' tomes Libido Dominandi and The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, albeit at much shorter length. Most of the book necessarily concerns extinct people and nonexistent data; trying to sniff out linguistic or anthropological connections between people and languages. To me, this not particularly useful. The small part that's interesting to me are the few times White verges into showing the same old jewish lying patterns in fresh -- pre-christian -- eras. As I've said, every mental honeycomb cell you haven't specially mucked is filled with jewish b.s. because tv and public schools will have been its fillers. By that token, every single publicly repeated jew-meme about jew history and jew suffering and jew motivations is proven on closer inspection to be a lie and the opposite of the truth. If jews claim they invented monotheism, you can damn well bet they didn't, and that they probably stole it from some other people. White touches on this, and his book would be much more interesting if it focused on such, but it's not really about that stuff, just incidentally. It truly is amazing that this people, jews -- wherever it insists on something about itself, you can bet what it's asserting is a lie.

From Bauhaus to Our House (1972), by Tom Wolfe

Can read this book for free online, just search it. I recommend it. Good quick read, gives you ideological overview of architecture in 20th century. Similar to E. Michael Jones's Living Machines in scope and treatment, although Wolfe, of course, doesn't trace bauhaus to Walter Gropius' sexual problems. Both are keen on the problems of the school. My notes on the Wolfe:

- sadism and ugliness, oh but it's for the people. Sheet glass building sides instead of brick and mortar or wood, leaves exposed office workers feeling they'll fall, or being sunbeaten to death by unshielded rays;
- low ceilings, narrow hallways and rooms, and small rooms;
- socialist worker housing became the chic style in all america;
- nonbourgeois - not for them, have them coming to you rather than the traditional you-serving-them;
- bauhaus traits include flat roof, streaked sides, glass corners;
- 'hausers came to America, took over and spread their doctrines through the archicture schools similar to way they propagated their jew views thru teachers colleges and anthropology, altho bauhausers were less jewy, but their modern ideology dovetails with jew-led efforts in other disciplines, and their style became called 'the international style,' an early example of NWO globalism made real;
- Frank Lloyd Wright hated them, he was going for an American school and got shoved into the shade
- architecture as technical skills + knowledge of aesthetic alternatives
- accepting Bauhaus as luxury equivalent to snipping end of dick off
- S-shaped tubular steel cane bottomed chairs - second most famous after Barcelona chairs - by Mies van der Rohe.
 
Old May 22nd, 2014 #50
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

The soulless utilitarian fugliness of Bauhaus is the jew spirit in concrete & glass.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old May 22nd, 2014 #51
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B. Forrest View Post
The soulless utilitarian fugliness of Bauhaus is the jew spirit in concrete & glass.
It's not utilitarian though because it isn't designed for humans. It's designed against humans.

Now, along with my horrible glass table by the unlofty firm of Eversmudge & Stabyourthighasyouwalkby, I had six of those bauhaus chairs shaped like letter s. Of course, I knew nothing about any of this at the time. What I soon discovered -- (as someone more experienced than me, or of a 100-level IQ could have figured out just looking at the dumb thing) -- was that because the bastards have no ass-to-ground support, if you sit on them for more than occasional afternoon summer lemonade, they buckle. So I used them up one by one over a very short period. How annoying is that. Now ten years later I ran across a pic of those chairs when I was reading the book, and ah! I see that these are ideological chairs, unfit for human consumption. Because it would be way too obvious to put supports under the weight-bearing part of the seat. The cool dude would move the supports to the front. (See the parallel to it would be too crude and obvious to blame blacks for the crimes they commit when you can blame white attitudes - this chair represents that perverse attitude transferred to architecture/design.)

Just look at it. What will happen if someone even of normal weight sits in that chair for more than about two months? It will buckle. How fucking dumb is that? It is perverse. There is no other word for it.

<======== do not buy chairs shaped like this

It's exactly the same as putting up all these state buildings with flat roofs in the midwest, like the schools here in Kirksville. Winter = snow. Snow + flat roofs = standing water = leaks = repair bills. All of which could be avoided by pitching the roof per, I don't know - sanity? logic? lack of obstinate, willful perverseness? The perversion of the buildings and furniture etc. goes hand in disfigured hand with the perversion propagated inside the building. Together they warp souls. That's the point of this school, though the schoolards can hardly admit it.

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 22nd, 2014 at 07:27 PM.
 
Old May 22nd, 2014 #52
Wednesday Owens
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 337
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
the man who liberates white men from jews will go down as the greatest man in history.
Or the most evil man in history if he loses (again)?

Do you believe the Liberator(s) to be born yet? 20yo? 40?

Do you suspect them to already be awakened and in action, such as GD?

Brilliant piece(s), btw, although I've only read through to part one of Buchanan thus far, I find it extremely refreshing to read such rigorous honesty regarding the cowardice of white conservatives, especially Christians.

Unless one is pursuing political office, I find the desire 'to be liked/included' comes with its own specific blinders. Kids kill themselves these days for being bullied on FB. Even in our own protected safety sites we see the need to belong to some clique. Like some kind of popular high school club in RL... do you believe those who successfully make (or will make) a difference are consumed with being liked? Accepted? Acknowledged by a select handful or driven by numbers?

I've always enjoyed reading the words of those who so obviously don't give a fuck about massaging the opinions of others.

Quote:
19 out of 20 men aren't leaders
Their own household, work environment or what exactly? I think I lost the 'context.'

Last edited by Wednesday Owens; May 22nd, 2014 at 08:02 PM.
 
Old May 22nd, 2014 #53
N.B. Forrest
Senior Member
 
N.B. Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Posts: 11,145
N.B. Forrest
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
It's not utilitarian though because it isn't designed for humans. It's designed against humans.

Now, along with my horrible glass table by the unlofty firm of Eversmudge & Stabyourthighasyouwalkby, I had six of those bauhaus chairs shaped like letter s. Of course, I knew nothing about any of this at the time. What I soon discovered -- (as someone more experienced than me, or of a 100-level IQ could have figured out just looking at the dumb thing) -- was that because the bastards have no ass-to-ground support, if you sit on them for more than occasional afternoon summer lemonade, they buckle. So I used them up one by one over a very short period. How annoying is that. Now ten years later I ran across a pic of those chairs when I was reading the book, and ah! I see that these are ideological chairs, unfit for human consumption. Because it would be way too obvious to put supports under the weight-bearing part of the seat. The cool dude would move the supports to the front. (See the parallel to it would be too crude and obvious to blame blacks for the crimes they commit when you can blame white attitudes - this chair represents that perverse attitude transferred to architecture/design.)

Just look at it. What will happen if someone even of normal weight sits in that chair for more than about two months? It will buckle. How fucking dumb is that? It is perverse. There is no other word for it.

<======== do not buy chairs shaped like this

It's exactly the same as putting up all these state buildings with flat roofs in the midwest, like the schools here in Kirksville. Winter = snow. Snow + flat roofs = standing water = leaks = repair bills. All of which could be avoided by pitching the roof per, I don't know - sanity? logic? lack of obstinate, willful perverseness? The perversion of the buildings and furniture etc. goes hand in disfigured hand with the perversion propagated inside the building. Together they warp souls. That's the point of this school, though the schoolards can hardly admit it.
The designer of that was determined to take a single piece of thin pipe and make a "chair" out of it; he had a Artistic Vision, so fuck the buyer/sitter and common sense.
__________________
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath

"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
 
Old June 9th, 2014 #54
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,342
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Book Notes

by Alex Linder
[index]

June 9, 2014

Scoop (1937), by Evelyn Waugh

Back when this was published, you could call niggers niggers, and make fun of pretty much whomever you wanted. Nearly every reference to what are obviously African blacks is slighting. They're savages, wogs, boys, and everything in between. Scoop is pretty well known among intellectual conservatives, as Evelyn Waugh is a big name in their crowd. Scoop doesn't so much satirize as life the cover on journalism, foreign reporting in particular, and pretty much everything else. Everyone is incompetent and driven by motives other than the ostensible ones. Good solid 6.5/10.

The Blooding (1983), by Joseph Wambaugh.

Non-fiction recounting by the author of The Onion Field and The Choirboys (L.A. cop fiction) of the first use of genetic fingerprinting. Using the new technology developed outside the detectosphere, was discovered one Colin Pitchfork, a 'sociopath' who raped and murdered two teenaged girls and was hard sought for long hard bootless fruitless twelvemonths by reams of coppers, a search that involved a wrong fingering of a dull one, who was the first to be informally acquitted by these newfound DNA tests.

Reproducing Rape (1993), by Gregory M. Matoesian.

Study in the verbal encoding of patriarchal modes of domination simultaneously at multiple levels but with particular close focus on language as formally and interactively employed or occurring in rape trials. What leftists see is what they will try to do themselves. So, this ostensible examination of legal-institutional/social-cultural patriarchy in practice offers a better framework for understanding how leftists will try to structure discourse to achieve and reproduce anti-white/anti-'male' outcomes. For one as interested in language as I am, this was a particularly interesting book. I doubt most readers could stand a page of it, and I'm not exaggerating. Matoesian, who must be a professor or a trial lawyer himself, or both at some point, has mastered the minutiae of political leftism and academia. It's incredibly intricate. More intricate than anything I've come across. He's not so much wrong in what he's saying as that he only gives you have the story, in that every single verbal privilege the prosecutor employs against the rape victim is counter-employed against the defendant. Yet he doesn't cover that aspect at all. Yes, he is right: the one doing the interviewing can force the one being queried into one-word responses. I've eperienced this first hand; it's incredibly annoying. But that's why both parties have chances to lay out their case. In the end, it comes down to what most people in society consider a reasonable person would have done or how he would have acted in a given situtation, and nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship by feminists, which isn't as unlikely as it sounds, could change that. If what Matoesian describes is indeed patriarchy, yet he never even brings up what would be a neutral or female-centered system, how it would look. I can't imagine. Perhaps a woman's feelings would be the standard. It would be illegal to ask if she were drunk, to consider how she was dressed, to consider how many sex partner she had in the past. This last I believe has already been achieved: sex history is off limits for questioning. It is fair to observe what Matoesian does up front: that most rapes are committed by men known to the victim. Only about 20% of the time is it a true stranger rape; the rest of the time it's either a friend, boyfriend, husband (if you accept marital rape is a thing), coworker or someone within at least the acquaintance circles of the victim. Calling this date rape I think is a bad idea, it's not a good or useful term. So again, not a particularly useful book, but an interesting one. To be honest, Matoesian would have to answer my charge above: that the defendant is subject to precisely the same controls in the cross-examination as the victim. I leave these 250 dense pages with not even a vague idea of what Matoesian would consider a non-patriarchal system, or what specific changes he would make to the courtroom pattern.

Theater in a Crowded Fire (2010), by Lee Gilmore.

A look at Burning Man through a number of different but left-tinted lenses. White thirtysomethings from norcal seek a pseudo- or semi-religious culture to be part of; very much reminds me of Hillary Clinton on her generation's seeking more "penetrating and ecstatic modes of being" in her commencement address, although that was some years before Burning Man got started. Basically, a bunch of California types, from Silicon Valley to hippies, gather on dusty distant mesa to have a near-religious experience, produce imitation art, and debate the usual boring questions about authenticity that the type's ever concerned with. Ok book if you want to know more about Burning Man, otherwise no reason to read it.

Mapping Ultra-Right Extremism, Xenophobia and Racism within the Greek State Apparatus (2012), report from the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

Golden Dawn leaders were arrested after this 100-page report sponsored by a German-jew-communist-named association came out. Notice the "mapping." Given technology, leftists can now witch-hunt at the ultimate level of granularity: right down to the individual witch. Can identify his name and location, for easiest capture and burning. The five analysts inspect the church, police, judiciary and military for guilt of loyalty to Greece rather than the anti-white New World Order proper elites are supposed to be a-borning. There's also an overview of Greek history. You can read the report in full online free here:

http://rosalux-europa.info/userfiles...ing_A4_WEB.pdf

[Excerpts with my comments in Excerpts sticky thread in books section here.]

Just After Sunset (2008), by Steven King.

Collection of short stories. Most of them not very good. Cuts:

Quote:
There was another meaty smack and another cry from the woman. There was a beat of silence, and then the man's voice came again, and you knew he was uneducated as well as drunk; it was the way he said hoor when he meant whore. You knew all sorts of things about him actually: that he'd sat at the back of the room in his high school English classes, that he drank milk straight out of the carton when he got home from school, that he'd dropped out in his sophomore or junior year, that he did the sort of job for which he needed to wear gloves and carry an X-Acto knife in his back pocket. You weren't supposed to make such generalizations -- it was like saying that all African-Americans had natural rhythm, that all Italians cried at the opera -- but here in the dark at eleven o'clock, surrounded by posters of missing children, for some reason always printed on pink paper, as if that were the color of the missing, you knew it was true." (p. 100-101) "Rest Stop"
Quote:
"I want her to come back," he said. "I want another kiss." (p.295) "Ayana"

Zamachowski gave me the mysterious smile doctors reserve for clueless plumbers, housewives, and English teachers. (p.299) "Ayana"
King edited the Best American Short Stories series. Forgot how to make them (short stories), trying to relearn, he says. "Willa" about life after death. "Stationary Bike" - only good one; "N"; "The Cat from Hell"; "The Gingerbread Girl," running up beach. "Harvey's Dream"; "Mute," about husband of lottery winner; "A Very Tight Place" - escape from pit toilet escape. "But writing stories is what I do, and this story came to me about a month after the fall of the Twin Towers. I might still not have written it if I had not recalled a conversation I had with a Jewish editor over twenty-five years before. He was unhappy with me about a story called "Apt Pupil." It was wrong for me to write about the concentration camps, he said, because I was not a Jew. I replied that made writing the story all the more important -- because writing is an act of willed understanding."

One of King's tiresome themes is the thinness of reality, and the bad things underneath struggling to get through. Also not interesting is pages and pages of the psychology of woman bound to a chair by rapist.

"Blaze" by Richard Bachman (King pen name - 2007 'trunk' novel written in '70s). Too many of these stories contain boring psychological stuff with no real depth to it, as opposed to real-world observations of particular types, or the facts of particular situations. This is where good stuff begins:

Quote:
"Blaisdell's a crook, he's an idiot, and he's lazy." That crooks were lazy was an article of faith in Albert Sterling's private church of beliefs. (p. 216)
Interesting descriptions of the various scams practiced by Blaze and George, especially the wallet scam and setting up picked-up queers.

[more coming accidentally chopped my notes and thought they were lost forever but got them back now editing]

Rules of Deception (2008), by Christopher Reich.

Author appears to be a Swiss-American living in L.A. Ordinary spy thriller. Best-selling author. Neocon-friendly plot. Typical bourgeois-philistine fodder. Cuts:

Quote:
Theodor Albrecht Lammers was born in Rotterdam in 1961. After earning a doctorate in mechanical engineering at Utrecht University, he drifted in and out of jobs at several undistinguished firms in Amsterdam and The Hague. He came to the notice of the authorities in 1987 while working in Brussels as an associate of Gerald Bull, the American armaments designer. At the time, Bull was busy creating a "supergun" for Saddam Hussein. Code-named Babylon, the gun was actually a giant artillery piece capable of lobbing a shell hundreds of miles with deadly accuracy. His work for the Middle Eastern potentate was a matter of public record. All the same, Bull and his associates (Theo Lammers included) were considered "persons of interest" by the Belgian police.

"Von Daniken knew the rest of the story himself. Gerald Bull was murdered in 1990, shot five times in the back of the head by an assassin waiting in the foyer of his Brussels apartment. At first, speculation had it that it was the Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, which had killed him. The speculation was incorrect. At the time, the Israelis had kept up a distant but cordial relationship with the scientist. As prospective clients, they were eager to know exactly what he was up to. It was for this very reason that the Iraqis had killed him. Once the Babylon gun was built, Saddam Hussein did not want Bull sharing its secrets with anyone, especially the Israelis." (pp.34-5)
Quote:
"Von Daniken respected the consitution as much as the next man. Never in his career had he strayed from either its letter or its intent. But a policeman's job had changed radically in the last ten years. As a counterterrorist, he needed to stop a crime before it happened Gone was the luxury of collecting evidence after the act and presenting it to a magistrate. Often, the only evidence was his experience and intuition." (p.84)
Guts of story is Iran getting nuclear weapons, threatening Israel. Reich repeats lie about wiping Israel off map. No mention of Israeli nukes. Only political twist is an American general evangelical named Major General John Austen who wants to equip Iran so the biblical end-times scenario Gog vs Magog can play out. "He, John Austen, who had not set foot inside a church since his confirmation at the age of thirteen, a user of alcohol, a womanizer who trampled on the sacred vows of marriage, a gambler who took the Lord's name in vane, a heathen in all senses of the word, had been chosen to usher in the Second Coming of his almighty Lord, Jesus Christ." (p.361) Austen is face of religious right, which has a cadre through all four services.

The God Delusion (2006), by Richard Dawkins.

The English biologist and atheist contrasts moral philosophers with religious. Cuts:

Quote:
"...we have a pusillanimous reluctance to use religious names for warring factions. In Northern Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are euphemized to 'Nationalists' and 'Loyalists' respectively. The very word 'religions' is bowdlerized to 'communities', as in 'inter-community warfare'. Iraq, as a consequence of the Anglo-American invasion of 2003, degenerated into sectarian civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Clearly a religious conflict - yet in the Independent of 20 May 2006 the front-page headline and fcirst leading article both described it as 'ethnic cleansing'. 'Ethnic' in this context is yet another euphemism. What we are seeing in Iraq is religious cleansing. The original usage of 'ethnic cleansing' in the former Yugoslavia is also arguably a euphemism for religious cleansing, involving Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosnians. (p.21)
Quote:
Jefferson: 'Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintellible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.' (p.34)
Ambrose Bierce's definition of 'to pray': 'to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.' Promotes the idea of descent by degree, backside of the cliff/mountain, gentle slope, intermediate eyes, wings.
Quote:
"St. Augustine said it quite openly: 'There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn' (p. 132-3)
Dawkins asserts man does exhibit design flaws, citing the laryngeal nerve; also, walking upright causes certain problems that a designer would have foreseen and avoided.

"Luther was well aware that reason was religion's arch-enemy, and he frequently warned of its dangers: 'Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.' Again, 'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.' And again: 'Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.'

That's the religious mentality. It's the same as John Dewey on intellectual education. The christians and the post-christian pseudo-secular socialist both harbor a hatred of learning, and see in it a danger to faith and to conformity, respectively.

- hate mail from god fans:

Quote:
"I'll get comfort in knowing that the the punishment GOD will bring to you will be 1000 times worse than anything I can inflict. The best part is that you WILL suffer for eternity for these sings that you're completely ignorant about. The Wrath of GOD will show no mercy. For your sake, I hope the truth is revealed to you before the knife connects with your flesh. Merry CHRISTMAS!!! PS You people really don't have a clue as to what is in store for you . . . I thank GOD I'm not you. (p.212)
The bible is the favorite book of people who don't read books.

Quote:
Jesus: 'If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.' (p.250)
- Love thy neighbor meant love thy fellow jew. Big deal out of Hartung's paper. jesus as jew and jewish racist. (p.253). Jew-kid morality in poll. They agreed a people should be destroyed, but not property that jews could use! (p.255-6)

- Religion as child abuse, mental worse than sexual but never mentioned. Not catholic children, children of catholics.

- Brights vs gay (p.338). "I signed up to the Brights, partly because I was genuinely curious whether such a word could be memetically engineered into the language. I don't know, and would like to, whether the transmutation of 'gay' was deliberately engineered or whether it just happened. (Dumbest statement in book, almost shockingly stupid).

Searching for Whitopia (2009), by Rich Benjamin

Author is a sort of high-end black, a reg'lar Hootie (of Blowfish fame). Cuts:

Quote:
"The five towns posting the largest white growth rates between 2000 and 2004 -- St. George, Utah; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Bend, Oregon; Prescott, Arizona; and Greeley, Colorado -- were already overwhelmingly white." (p. 7)
Quote:
"Most whites are not drawn to a place explicitly because it teems with other white people. Rather, the place's very whiteness teems with other perceived qualities. Americans associate a homogenous white neighborhood with higher property values, friendliness, orderliness, hospitality, cleanliness, safety, and comfort. These seemingly race-neutral qualities are subconsciously inseparable from race and class in many whites' minds. Race is often used as a proxy for those neighborhood traits. And, if a neighborhood is known to have htose traits, many whites presume -- without giving it a thought -- that the neighborhood will be majority white." (p.8) -- dubious assertion 'subconscious' and 'without giving it a thought'
Quote:
"Since the early 1990s, at least five hundred white LAPD officers and their families have fled Southern California for North Idaho, forming an expat community complete with bowling tournaments, potluck suppers, and monthly camping trips." (p.9)
Quote:
"Think of Whitopia in three ways -- as small towns, boomtowns, and dream towns. Some Whitopias are fiber-optic Mayberries, small towns and counties that take pride in their ordinariness. Other Whitopias are boomtowns, entrepreneurial hotbeds that lure a steady stream of businesses, knowledge workers, and families. In the low-tax, incentive-rich boomtowns, the costs of living and doing business are cheaper than in the big-shot cities (even during the present recession). Finally, there are the dream towns. Whitopias whose shimmery lakes, lush forests and parks, top-notch ski resorts, demanding golf courses, and deluxe real estate trigger flights of ecstasy, luring the upscale whites who just love their natural and man-made amenities." (p.13)
Quote:
"Today, L.A., with its litter-strewn, billboard-cluttereed boulevards, its business-unfriendly reputation, its lack of green space, and its congestion -- even on residential streets now jammed with development -- is driving out many who can vote with their feet. And the data show that LA excels at drawing in the poor," the LA Weekly, a left-leaning alternative publicaiton, noted in 2009.

When Mrs. Sears would visit her two sisters and their families in Southern California in the early 1980s, she began to observe "the graffiti all over and hte trash on the ground. Californians didn't do things like that. One thing that's in the culture of hte Hispanics is to have Saturday night cul-de-sac parties with the boom boxes going and all that. Americans didn't do things that way. It was not in our culture to disturb the whole neighborhood partying with no consideration of other people." -- Mrs Sears (p.28), leader of anti-invader movement in St. George. ... "The government and corporations "just want worldwide unfettered trade and to build one free highway from Mexico through the U.S. and up to Canada," she says... "Basically, Mrs. Sears adds, "the powers that be want Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. to become one entity -- like the EU." her favorite protest sign: "He who puts country before commerce is a patriot. He who puts commerce before country is a traitor." --Benjamin Franklin.

"Latinos that publicly oppose amnesty get called Tio Taco." (p.47)
Quote:
"Since you can only say "gated community" so many times, local Realtors have to hatch an army of Orwellian euphemissms to appease the buyers' tastes: "master-planned community," "landscaped resort community," "secluded intimate neighborhood," "private luxury community" . . . No matter the label, the product is the same: homogenous, conservative, safe." (p.49)
Quote:
Roy Beck says he's a "race liberal." "We have lived in seven different cities, not in the same state. Every single city we moved into, we deliberately chose racially integrated neighborhoods. In the early seventies, you actually had to force a Realtor to do that for you." ... "There are two ways that white liberals and, frankly, black liberals, too, prove themselves in just how affirmative and aggressive they want to be: where they live an dwhere htey send their kids to school. On those two things my wife and I have always been aggressive." (p.67-8)
- many of the movers are former System people - cops and teachers - who retire to Whitopias

- what happens when browns invade: "Then you're going to see cases of drug abuse in your own population that you never saw before. You're going to know about Mary and Joe and Phil and Susan. They used to be nice kids, but now they're totally wasted on meth. There will be a group of heroin addicts nearby and they're going to have to do stuff to get money for their drugs. It's going to be identity theft, scams, and burglaries galore, all intimately interrelated with the illegal alien issue." (p.81)

..."to my mind, the most dramatic way California ruins North Idaho is to export its high-end racists."


Gutshot Straight (2010), by Lou Berney.

Written during writers' strike of a few years ago. Very smooth. Panama, Vegas. Subtler and smoother than most crime fiction.

The Vigilantes (2010), by W.E.B. Griffin.

Crime fiction based in Philadelphia, pop and drop. Idea of mind-binding, mind-binders.

- never-think-it-through mentality in these crime novels. At most the cop thinks through the personal implication - he could get shot and killed. As for his job, he either thinks job security or crime just continues to get worse or we're only cleaning up a little bit of the problem. Never any discussion of root causes, just some mention of symptoms and Systemic problems, in this case bond.

- vocabulary: 'knurled' - "~ back of the hammer"

Cuts:

Quote:
"Badde [nigger politician], affecting a bit of a French accent, authoritatively said, "It would have been a faint plea, of course."

Wynne cocked his head as he puffed his pipe.

"A what?" Wynne said.

"You know, a faint plea -- the French saying for 'the cow is out of the barn,' or even 'you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube.' It's a done deal, and you can't go back."

"You mean fait accompli," Wynne said. "An accomplished fact."

"That's it," Badde said.

Wynne noticed that Badde was wholly unembarrassed by the correction.

[Wynne is white prof working for nig pol] (p.232)
Quote:
"The vast majority of America's biggest cities used the bail bond system, a private-sector enterprise administered by for-profit companies. In contrast, the City of Philadelphia (and the City of Chicago, Illinois, which had a similar number of fugitives from justice) used a system of deposit bail, which was government-funded and government-run. [...] The main difference between the two models arose if hte offender missed or skipped out on his court date. Under the bail bond model, the court went after the bail bondsman for hte deadbeat's forfeited fee -- the company then had financial incentive to find the deadbeat and deliver him to court. There was no similar financial incentive, however, with a deposit bond. The government already owned the deadbeat's IOU. It was funny money, more or less worthless unless they hunted down the deadbeat and collected the remaining fee -- if they could find him, and if he had the funds to pay.

And so, not surprisingly, those who'd blown their deposit bail numbered around fifty thousand -- no one knew the exact number because, due to more bureaucratic blundering, a master list was never kept.

These fugitives collectively owed hundreds of millions of dollars for their unpaid IOUs.

Worse, in the meantime they remained at large on the streets, acting with impunity -- effectively telling the City of Philadelphia and its judicial system to go fuck itself. (pp.22-3)
Quote:
"The prison had been conceived in Ben Franklin's house in 1787 and opened in 1829. It promoted a new type of incarceration, one encouraging rehabilitation by locking up prisoners by themselves. It was believed that being alone in the cold, hard cells would force inmates to consider their crimes, and perhaps find God as they sought penance -- thus the word 'penitentiary.' The cells even had a small skylight, a simple glass pane -- the "eye of God" -- that was meant to remind the prisoners that they were always being watched." (p.264)
- mention of nig congressman who thought Guam would tip over from navy stationing 8,000 troops and families on it

- Will curtis, white man in fedex disguise killing deadbeats as he dies of cancer, after his daughter is raped.//

Last edited by Alex Linder; June 9th, 2014 at 05:15 PM.
 
Old June 11th, 2014 #55
Joe_Smith
Senior Member
 
Joe_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,778
Joe_Smith
Default

The Rosa Luxembourg institute is a German government funded think-tank affiliated to the Judeo-Leftist party Die Linke. It specializes in spreading and organizing cultural Marxism around the world.
__________________
"The favorite slogan of the reds is: 'No Pasarán!: Yes we have passed! And we tell them...and we tell them, we will pass again!'"
― Benito Mussolini after the Communist capitulation in Barcelona
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.
Page generated in 0.35043 seconds.