POST TITLELESS - 2006-08-08 | 2006-08-08
NO SPAM
Might this woman match Bob's 1950s sexual imprint?
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/9554/3261webue8.jpg
Comment by Al Parker
******WOW!
******* Ooops, I mean "Shame on you!"
MISSED POINT? | 2008-08-14
The article below, Russia's Choice: Nuclear War or Genocide, should give us a major string to our bow. Liberals protected the USSR for forty years with the nuclear threat.
Now the real nuclear threat has to do with white genocide.
No one mentioned this.
BEING LIBERAL MEANS NEVER HAVING TO FACE THE FACTS | 2005-05-07
Can you imagine a Respectable Conservative pointing out to a liberal that "nearly 150 female cadets" being sexually assaulted completely destroys the left's arguments for women in combat?
Everyone knows that conquering armies rape the women of the losers. It is understood that the aggressiveness required for waging war spills over into other behaviors.
So if women were the equals of men in combat, they would sexually assault men at roughly the same rate as men assault women.
"Nearly 150" to zero does not bode well for the combat readiness of women. Only someone as insensitive as ole Bob will point this out.
Of course, it would be really insensitive for ole Bob to point out that none of the traditional religions allow women in combat. Only the religion of Political Correctness insists on this.
The article has several other figures that aren't meant to be studied closely. For example, "55 instances of religious bias in the past five years" translates to 11 per year. For a school with 4,000 cadets, that translates to less than one quarter of one percent. Since the school is 1% Jewish, less than 1% Muslim, and roughly 8% other, does that sound like such a big deal?
Do you think that out of a group of 40 Jews, 30 something Muslims (at a military school in the midst of a war in the middle east) and 350 assorted non-Christians you could find 11 who might not like Bible verses in emails or crosses in dorm rooms?
BATTLE STRATEGY FROM PROMETHEUS | 2007-12-06
It is the intention we are focusing on, not the events. Others say that there is no way that EVERY white person will disappear, therefore we are wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The mantra's power I think comes from the fact it attacks the intention, the motive behind liberals and anti-racists rather than just raw data.
No liberal would argue that the Nazi's are innocent, because their plan of genocide didn't include every living Jew. No, they were damned because they tried and the degree of success they had is irrelevant. You cant even discuss numbers without getting past what they wanted.
Same with liberals. We KNOW what they want, their actions and words give them away with frightening regularity. It is the very existance of this agenda against whites which is the issue. The implementation of their program is a matter of details and the fact there might be similarities elsewhere in the world, again, is trivial.
Any one who thinks that ALL and ONLY white nations should become multiracial melting pots is anti-white and sick in the head.
When engaging in debate, I always ask myself, "is this person saying what they are saying, as a means of justifying something that threatens my race?"