PDA

View Full Version : Bill O'Reilly humiliates David duke


///M power
12-18-2006, 02:34 PM
did anyone see that interview? its was a few days ago at fox news.
I must say, I was pretty disappointed from duke,I thought his debating skills were better, he didn't know what to say, he was confused, he swallowed words and he stuttered a lot.
he said openly that he doesn't deny the Holocaust, he said that directly, can he make up his mind?
Bill O'Reilly is a difficult guy to debate but I was expecting much more from that David duke.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 02:36 PM
I'll look for this on utube. Billy O'Reilly is a tough sob, I disagree with his stance on war, but we'll see this. He interviewed Duke before.

Fitz
12-18-2006, 03:04 PM
123, yesterday you claimed the Irish are a race of low-IQ jew haters. O'Reilly is obviously an exception in your estimation. Low-IQ jew lover maybe? There are surely a lot of those.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 03:08 PM
It seems you only post in threads relevant to David Duke. I must say that seems "intersting."

It's not all irish, its but a few irish individuals who have been p*ssing me off.

If you define >140 as "low" I suppose you are right on the mark ha.

///M power
12-18-2006, 03:15 PM
well the Irish people see them selves as oppressed by the British, so they feel the same for the filthystinians(Palestinians) being "oppressed" by Israel.

Zrinski
12-18-2006, 04:13 PM
O'Reilly is an idiot.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 04:20 PM
I would respect him if it wasn't for his worship of president bush's foreign policy.

Geist
12-18-2006, 04:23 PM
well the Irish people see them selves as oppressed by the British, so they feel the same for the filthystinians(Palestinians) being "oppressed" by Israel.

No they don't. Where do you people get your information on Ireland? The Sinn Fein website?

I reckon if one was to spend their time rectifying misrepresentations of the Irish on the Phora one would need to buy a lot of amphetamines to keep up with it all.

JohnAFlynn
12-18-2006, 04:27 PM
O'Reilly is an idiot.

O'Reilly is actually pretty smart, he's just a bit too philosemite for my liking.

;)
Stan

Isabella
12-18-2006, 04:43 PM
No they don't. Where do you people get your information on Ireland? The Sinn Fein website?Who runs Sinn Fein then? Ubangi? :rofl:

Seriously I think the right answer is that some don't, some do.

///M power
12-18-2006, 04:46 PM
Who runs Sinn Fein then? Ubangi? :rofl:

Seriously I think the right answer is that some don't, some do.

are you irish?

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 04:47 PM
With the Queen Isabella portrait, I'd guess she's spanish...

| I, CWAS
12-18-2006, 04:48 PM
Bill O'Reilly is a moron and actually makes David Duke seem respectable.
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 04:50 PM
I respect the way he didn't jump on the accused in the duke lacrosse myth.

Geist
12-18-2006, 04:54 PM
Who runs Sinn Fein then? Ubangi? :rofl:

Seriously I think the right answer is that some don't, some do.

Gerry Adams does? Why do you want to know Brandon? ;)

Isabella
12-18-2006, 04:59 PM
are you irish?Only a small fraction on my mother's side. As far as islanders go, I've got more Sicilian (my dad was half).

Isabella
12-18-2006, 05:04 PM
Gerry Adams does?Yea. I think you're both painting with way too wide a brush. Irish people are capable of many views on the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Why do you want to know Brandon? ;)Because he's interesting, among other things. What does that have to do with this topic? :p

shanemac
12-18-2006, 05:10 PM
I wonder what Jew123123's problem is. Every post remotely critical of jew's he pounces on... even those that are obviously jokes.

shanemac
12-18-2006, 05:13 PM
well the Irish people see them selves as oppressed by the British, so they feel the same for the filthystinians(Palestinians) being "oppressed" by Israel.

I think that was to some extent true back in the 80's/early 90's. Not sure about now though as I don't live in Ireland anymore.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 05:22 PM
I wonder what Jew123123's problem is. Every post remotely critical of jew's he pounces on... even those that are obviously jokes.
9th time in 3 days I've been accused of being jewish. You ask why I complain about irish people, look right here. We've got shanemac and flynn running off.

No. I attack individual jews when I feel it is necessary and I attack gentiles when I feel it is necessary.

Isabella
12-18-2006, 05:24 PM
I think that was to some extent true back in the 80's/early 90's. Not sure about now though as I don't live in Ireland anymore.From what I've seen of "Basil Fawlty" who posts here, he is Irish and fits Muscle Power's description to a T.

Heavens to Betsy
12-18-2006, 05:58 PM
From what I've seen of "Basil Fawlty" who posts here, he is Irish and fits Muscle Power's description to a T.

So since you can prove it for a particular it must be true in general :dance2:

Zrinski
12-18-2006, 06:01 PM
O'Reilly is actually pretty smart, he's just a bit too philosemite for my liking.

;)
Stan

He can be a genius (though I doubt it) when that doesn't help him...the man is just a stupid redneck. I mean to call people into your studio and then not allow them to speak up, lecture them or shut them up (literally) is extremely small minded and disrespectful.

But I am grateful to him for one thing though...without him there wouldn't be people like Jon Stewart and, especially, Stephen Colbert, to make him look ridiculous and make people laugh at his stupidity. :D

Isabella
12-18-2006, 06:14 PM
So since you can prove it for a particular it must be true in general :dance2:I'm not trying to prove it as a general rule. Read my other posts in this thread. Esp.: "Irish people are capable of many views on the Israeli/Palestinian situation."

Starr
12-18-2006, 06:26 PM
That was an old interview that was replayed. I actually think in this instance that Duke did as well as someone could possibly do when being interviewed by someone who does not want to let you speak and keeps on interrupting you.(Hannity is the absolute worst of the talking heads) It irritated me, also the way O'reilly would come back to the subject of Ward Churchill, like David Duke is expected to defend him.:confused: And you can see what O'reilly was doing in trying to get Duke to defend someone like him. Duke handled that well, however just by basically saying he didn't agree with his choice of words, but he should be allowed to express his opinions. That sounded very honorable coming from Duke considering Churchill is like some anti-white leftist freak.

Welcome back, MP.:)

Heavens to Betsy
12-18-2006, 06:29 PM
I'm not trying to prove it as a general rule. Read my other posts in this thread. Esp.: "Irish people are capable of many views on the Israeli/Palestinian situation."

And when did anyone dispute that ?

///M power
12-18-2006, 06:30 PM
thanks starr.
I'm sending you a pm,need help from you :)

Isabella
12-18-2006, 06:36 PM
And when did anyone dispute that ?I was just tossing some nuance into the mix of blanket statements of The Irish think this way and no they don't

Isabella
12-18-2006, 06:38 PM
It irritated me, also the way O'reilly would come back to the subject of Ward Churchill, like David Duke is expected to defend him.:confused: And you can see what O'reilly was doing in trying to get Duke to defend someone like him. Duke handled that well, however just by basically saying he didn't agree with his choice of words, but he should be allowed to express his opinions. That sounded very honorable coming from Duke considering Churchill is like some anti-white leftist freak.Btw Ward Churchill is also very pro-Palestinian...

Starr
12-18-2006, 06:52 PM
Btw Ward Churchill is also very pro-Palestinian...


Of course he is. Most people like him are going to be. I suspect that is why David Horowitz was pitching a fit recently calling him an anti-semite.:rolleyes:

Isabella
12-18-2006, 07:06 PM
Of course he is. Most people like him are going to be. I suspect that is why David Horowitz was pitching a fit recently calling him an anti-semite.:rolleyes:Here's an article where Churchill criticizes the idea that the Holocaust is the only "true" genocide, and also the idea that only Jews suffered in it

http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/churchill/denial.html
In their more extreme formulations, proponents of Jewish exclusivism hold not only that the Holocaust was a uniquely Jewish experience, but that it is history's sole instance of "true" genocide. Exclusivists have gone on record, explicitly and repeatedly, denying that everything from the extermination of the Pequots in 1637, to the Turkish slaughter of more than a million Armenians between 1915 and 1918, to the more recent genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo aren't really examples of genocide at all.6 (http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/churchill/denial.html#N6) Hence, while neo-Nazis deny a single genocide, exclusivists deny many.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 07:08 PM
Most jews do not get angry if you mention that gypsies suffered, that dissidents suffered, that homosexuals suffered, that armenians were killed by turks, most jews would not get angry at that. It is only the most extreme radical guilt-pushers. In every population there are a few nut cases.

Hermetic
12-18-2006, 08:14 PM
If a person wants to persue the we love jews here, while we ironically attack all the programs they have been behind in the West, method, fine. But the never ending personal attacks on people who point out the jews sins against gentiles honestly as bad because they do not seek the approvial of jews first and frame there method in the kosher friendly box, is backwards, pat the jew on the head, while attacking the jews enemies for him. The whole thing is sick and reeks of the slave morality.

Starr
12-18-2006, 08:21 PM
Here's an article where Churchill criticizes the idea that the Holocaust is the only "true" genocide, and also the idea that only Jews suffered in it

http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/churchill/denial.html
[/I][/COLOR]


Wow, i knew he had made all kinds of "controversial" statements, but I really had no idea that he has said things like this. No wonder the media hates this guy with a passion. Interesting.

Isabella
12-18-2006, 08:33 PM
Wow, i knew he had made all kinds of "controversial" statements, but I really had no idea that he has said things like this. No wonder the media hates this guy with a passion. Interesting.No wonder David Duke was soft on this guy, huh? If he thinks he can "ally" with Hamas etc, would it be any goofier for him to try to "ally" with Ward Churchill too? :rofl:

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-18-2006, 08:39 PM
If a person wants to persue the we love jews here, while we ironically attack all the programs they have been behind in the West, method, fine. But the never ending personal attacks on people who point out the jews sins against gentiles honestly as bad because they do not seek the approvial of jews first and frame there method in the kosher friendly box, is backwards, pat the jew on the head, while attacking the jews enemies for him. The whole thing is sick and reeks of the slave morality.
I'm sorry but what the h*ll are you talking about?

I think I understand what you are saying but I can't be sure with all the grammatical errors. It's real simple. I, and most people, don't think ONLY jews were behind these programs, or that ALL jews were behind these programs. Your people, the "wns," don't expose anything, you simply make inaccurate statement after inaccurate statement. Your logic is about as good as your grammar.

Starr
12-18-2006, 08:42 PM
No wonder David Duke was soft on this guy, huh? If he thinks he can "ally" with Hamas, would it be any goofier for him to try to "ally" with Ward Churchill too? :rofl:


He wasn't really soft on him. I remember towards the end of the segment he actually said something to the effect of "the comments about 9/11 were terrible." I realize it was merely smart for him to throw that in, howver, since O'reilly's audience wouldn't take too kindly to him saying something else. This is one of the things O'reilly was trying to bait him into saying I think and then O'reilly would have come at him like a pack of wild dogs.

B-Pep
12-18-2006, 08:42 PM
well the Irish people see them selves as oppressed by the British, so they feel the same for the filthystinians(Palestinians) being "oppressed" by Israel.


It's ironic that a jew criticizes another peoples perceived victimology.

The Irish, honestly, are oppressed by the British as a good chunk of their country has been taken from them. You as a jewish parasite will perhaps never feel the pain of having your country taken from you, as you jews do not and never will have a true homeland (Israel is a house of cards!). So live it up bloodsucker, soon your time will be up.

Isabella
12-18-2006, 08:46 PM
He wasn't really soft on him. I remember towards the end of the segment he actually said something to the effect of "the comments about 9/11 were terrible." I realize it was merely smart for him to throw that in, howver, since O'reilly's audience wouldn't take too kindly to him saying something else. This is one of the things O'reilly was trying to bait him into saying I think.Then I sit corrected when it comes to Duke being soft on him. But I think I'm right that Duke is trying to build some kind of bloc with Muslims. I'd love to ask him how they are any more compatible with Duke's vision than Ward Churchill.

JohnAFlynn
12-18-2006, 09:53 PM
If a person wants to persue the we love jews here, while we ironically attack all the programs they have been behind in the West, method, fine. But the never ending personal attacks on people who point out the jews sins against gentiles honestly as bad because they do not seek the approvial of jews first and frame there method in the kosher friendly box, is backwards, pat the jew on the head, while attacking the jews enemies for him. The whole thing is sick and reeks of the slave morality.

My thoughts exactly.

JohnAFlynn
12-18-2006, 09:55 PM
Then I sit corrected when it comes to Duke being soft on him. But I think I'm right that Duke is trying to build some kind of bloc with Muslims. I'd love to ask him how they are any more compatible with Duke's vision than Ward Churchill.

I'll answer that for you. Because the muslims recognize the jew as their enemy. And, more importantly, they are willing to fight the jews, unlike so many soft lemming Whites in the West.

il ragno
12-18-2006, 10:25 PM
It doesn't matter who "pwns" who on an American tv interview. The Israeli-directed American invasion of Iraq is suicide-bomber fuel that will burn for the next 50 years.

Not only will the suicide bombings not stop, but inevitably the ante will be upped to biological agents, dirty nukes, etc, etc. You could wave a magic wand that makes all the old-fashioned Western anti-Semites disappear tomorrow and it will still happen, because this isn't about David Duke, or who looks more convincing on tv, or what any of us believe or don't believe: this is about one billion Muslims vs 15 million Jews.

This is about people who can't be bribed with bourgeois niceties or brainwashed with MTV, who are simply too numerous to ever round up and kill off......who don't mind a slow war of attrition until they can seize an opportunity to deliver the death-blow. And then it won't matter who was ahead on points in the propaganda war.

calvin
12-18-2006, 10:45 PM
"http://www.newshounds.us/2005/02/26/only_foxs_bill_oreilly_could_make_david_duke_look_good.php"

Is this perhaps the Bill O'Reilly interview in question?

Hermetic
12-18-2006, 11:54 PM
Interesting that I did not have you in mind when I wrote that post, but you seem to think I did. Combined with your personal attack to open your post with and lumping me with the " your people wns" while I do not claim the status of WN and left it. But you need to attack me personally just like another groups main tactic, discredit the persons character never the issues raised. Carry on.


I'm sorry but what the h*ll are you talking about?

I think I understand what you are saying but I can't be sure with all the grammatical errors. It's real simple. I, and most people, don't think ONLY jews were behind these programs, or that ALL jews were behind these programs. Your people, the "wns," don't expose anything, you simply make inaccurate statement after inaccurate statement. Your logic is about as good as your grammar.

Starr
12-19-2006, 01:12 AM
If a person wants to persue the we love jews here, while we ironically attack all the programs they have been behind in the West, method, fine. But the never ending personal attacks on people who point out the jews sins against gentiles honestly as bad because they do not seek the approvial of jews first and frame there method in the kosher friendly box, is backwards, pat the jew on the head, while attacking the jews enemies for him. The whole thing is sick and reeks of the slave morality.


Though i don't always agree 100% with everything he says, I basically like David Duke, warts and all. But if someone takes issue with a certain style, it is not going to be about only approving of people who are "kosher friendly", it is going to be because they might have very real doubts as to the reliability of the idea that all problems that have befallen us are the result of the jew. That also becomes a nice little package that people like to wrap up all of their arguments in. I think you, from other things I have seen you say, can agree with that.
When you see people attacking certain ideas it is not, in any way, about defending the jew(definitely not with me) it is about defending our credibility. I am sure our enemies love to be able to classify us all as a bunch of conspiracy theorist nuts and some people help feed into that. I have a major problem with that.

And define "behind" I think most of us can agree that jews have had a major inflence in many harmful programs and movements, but it also is not true that they could have accomplished certain things on their own. Some people seem to want to believe they did.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 01:47 AM
I guess this is where Starr and I disagree. I think we need to completely cut ourselves off with these people. We can't sit down and debate "well we have this in common, that in common" we need race realism to be seen as its own beacon, its own movement, a movement where David Duke isn't welcome. It is true that I would never defend jews who are actively engaging in actions against the white race (or gentiles for that matter). But I would gladly defend racially aware jews like Michael Levin, and take whatever verbal bullets I have coming for it.

If we compare us to communism, there were menshovics and bolshevics, the menshovics wanted to cooperate with the current regime, the bolshevics wanted to overthrow it. That's how I feel about wn, like the second, I want a new mainstream movement that shuns the old one. I want a movement that is designed for the future, and not for the past. And for that to happen, we have to let go of the past, we can't half way hold on or it will hold us back like a 10 ton rock.

Starr
12-19-2006, 05:45 AM
[QUOTE=God123123]I guess this is where Starr and I disagree. I think we need to completely cut ourselves off with these people. We can't sit down and debate "well we have this in common, that in common" we need race realism to be seen as its own beacon, its own movement, a movement where David Duke isn't welcome. It is true that I would never defend jews who are actively engaging in actions against the white race (or gentiles for that matter).

It is somewhat difficult for me to hold a lot of negative thoughts of David Duke. It is he(and also Pat Buchanan, a little bit) who are responsible for setting me on, what I would call the right path. And like I said, I disagree with him on some things, even important things, and he has personal problems that have been put under a microscope, but I do believe he is sincerely committed to our "cause." And he has dedicated his life to this. I definitely do believe we need a new direction, on that I am going to agree.

But I would gladly defend racially aware jews like Michael Levin, and take whatever verbal bullets I have coming for it

so would I. this is not something i would have said even as short of a time ago as six months. I went through the whole "name the jew" "jews are responsible for all of our problems" "all jews are bad" thing, but it was for a very short time. It just had too many faults that were too obvious. It was also very new to me, whereas I have been racially aware as far back as I can remember.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 05:58 AM
I believe Pat Buchanan is good. If you look at me ideologically when it comes to most issues, Buchanan and I are similar. He is an enemy of any foreign interests, but he doesn't sound like he's reciting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion when he speaks. He is a great analyist and I always enjoyed watching him on MSNBC.

Buchanan truly does not hate anyone. He just loves America.

Carlos Danger
12-19-2006, 07:15 AM
Here's an article where Churchill criticizes the idea that the Holocaust is the only "true" genocide, and also the idea that only Jews suffered in it

http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/churchill/denial.html
[/I][/COLOR]
An American Holocaust? (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18021)

leondegrance
12-19-2006, 10:18 AM
David Duke is a step up from a Glenn Miller, but not by much. He's tried to repackage himself as a scholar and intellectual, but just comes across as a jew-obsessed douchebag. He proved that at the Amren conference about a year ago.

Fitz
12-19-2006, 04:44 PM
...so would I. this is not something i would have said even as short of a time ago as six months. I went through the whole "name the jew" "jews are responsible for all of our problems" "all jews are bad" thing, but it was for a very short time. It just had too many faults that were too obvious. It was also very new to me, whereas I have been racially aware as far back as I can remember.

I’ve never considered "naming the Jew" to be the equivalent of "all Jews are bad". It’s simply an acknowledgment that we will never understand our history or the nature of the current emergency unless we are free to look wherever the evidence leads us. Jared Taylor or anyone else blocking the path in defense of this or that “good Jew” defends the bad Jews as well, and runs the obvious risk of being considered an accomplice.


I think we need to completely cut ourselves off with these people. We can't sit down and debate "well we have this in common, that in common" we need race realism to be seen as its own beacon, its own movement, a movement where David Duke isn't welcome.

I think you have already cut yourself off from David Duke, and that is your right. But you seem to want more than that. You revel in attacking Duke’s character and that of his supporters. You make no mention or give Duke any credit for his real accomplishments, and you seem determined, if it were in your power, to deny Duke the opportunity to be heard. You honestly appear to hate David Duke, and that seems like an unusually strong reaction to be had by a "white" man to Duke's message or personality.

Most telling perhaps, you compare yourself with the Bolsheviks and WN’s with the Czarists. Does that mean you would like to shoot WN’s in the backs of our heads and bury us in a shallow grave in the forest?

This is why people accuse you of being a Jew "123". It’s because you think like one and sound like one and you haven’t a single particle of courage or honor in your body.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 05:06 PM
You honestly appear to hate David Duke, and that seems like an unusually strong reaction to be had by a "white" man to Duke's message or personality.
Do you honestly think the majority of people like David Duke? I'm not even talking about jews. Just the majority of non-jewish whites. Getting white votes against liberal democrats doesn't prove this. Many people don't even look at who the representative candidate is, they focus on the senate candidate and gubernatorial candidate and if its the year the Presidential candidate. Many people even vote strait tickets...but David Duke's approval rating I heard was in the thirties. You certainly have the right to correct me if I'm wrong about this statistical figure.
Most telling perhaps, you compare yourself with the Bolsheviks and WN’s with the Czarists. Does that mean you would like to shoot WN’s in the backs of our heads and bury us in a shallow grave in the forest?
History note. The bolshevics didn't ovethrow the Tzar, although he did get killed. They overthrew the Provisional Government. This means I want to severely restrict participation from people who I believe would lead the movement in the wrong direction for future membership gains. The whole analogy is basically trying to differentiate between being a new branch of an old movement (menshoviks were really democrats who had a different political leaning) and being a completely new movement.

This is why people accuse you of being a Jew "123". It’s because you think like one and sound like one and you haven’t a single particle of courage or honor in your body.
This is why I just then show that I'm not jewish and it completely discredits these people...I have neither a jewish mom nor a jewish last name by birth, nor have I performed any conversion, so I'm not jewish in any way.

Jared Taylor or anyone else blocking the path in defense of this or that “good Jew” defends the bad Jews as well, and runs the obvious risk of being considered an accomplice.
I strongly disagree. Jared Taylor has attacked David Horowitz and the article is posted here on this forum. I believe you find it convenient to think that you either attack all jews or defend all jews. Normal people realize they can attack and defend individual jews based on their merits. It isn't as difficult as you conveniently wish it was. But to admit this indisputable fact would go against your agenda, it just wouldn't fit, so you pretend otherwise.

Starr
12-19-2006, 06:45 PM
I’ve never considered "naming the Jew" to be the equivalent of "all Jews are bad". It’s simply an acknowledgment that we will never understand our history or the nature of the current emergency unless we are free to look wherever the evidence leads us. Jared Taylor or anyone else blocking the path in defense of this or that “good Jew” defends the bad Jews as well, and runs the obvious risk of being considered an accomplice.

Neither do I. I was just throwing a few different ideas that I have seen together in the same sentence. And don't get me wrong, I definitely do not agree with a completely hands-off approach in regards to the jews,I am talking more about distancing myself from a lot of the faulty arguments coming from the kind of people who see jews under every bed. And it seems a lot of the people who talk about "naming the jew" fall into this category. The kind of people, for example, that you might see on a forum like this, who can not make one post on any subject without " its the jews" somehow coming into the conversation., the kind of people who, also when questioned, might call you a jew. This is just plain odd and drives me insane.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 07:07 PM
Imagine if every single time something went wrong in my life, I said "it's the Italians." If you challanged me I say you are Italian. If you deny that I say you are an Italian-lover. If I did this, I would be insane. It's just as insane to do it with jews.

Now here's the question. What kind of insane, psycho Italian would not resist this? And what kind of person are you if you stand by and don't resist this, even if you aren't Italian? No, the enemy inside our gates is worse than the enemy outside them. People who discredit the movement with conspiracy theories (and I know Duke doesn't like to call it that but that is what they are) must be exposed, and must be fought.

il ragno
12-19-2006, 07:30 PM
Imagine if every single time something went wrong in my life, I said "it's the Italians." If you challanged me I say you are Italian. If you deny that I say you are an Italian-lover. If I did this, I would be insane. It's just as insane to do it with jews.

Except that whenever something goes wrong in your life, it IS the Italians! Every time.

Remember the anthrax scare, or the OJ verdict? I still get royalty checks on both of 'em.

calvin
12-19-2006, 07:43 PM
If your roof is falling in because of dry rot in your rafters you don’t spend time on lengthy discussions about woodworm in your basement. The over discussion of the Jewish influence in politics and culture in White Nationalist forums is a direct result of its non-discussion anywhere else.

David Duke sounded a lot more lucid than George Galloway. If you check the comments on youtube you will see that there are dozens of comments from people who claim to hate Duke’s racist opinions, people whom I assume are leftists, who nevertheless applaud Duke’s courage in standing up to the Jewish lobby. Duke’s perceived anti-Semitism may not be as much of a liability as some people seem to think.

Fitz
12-19-2006, 08:32 PM
123, I’ve watched you edit post #52 at least 3 times. You needn’t clarify your position for me, I read you clearly enough.

Do you honestly think the majority of people like David Duke? I'm not even talking about jews. Just the majority of non-jewish whites. Getting white votes against liberal democrats doesn't prove this. Many people don't even look at who the representative candidate is, they focus on the senate candidate and gubernatorial candidate and if its the year the Presidential candidate. Many people even vote strait tickets...but David Duke's approval rating I heard was in the thirties. You certainly have the right to correct me if I'm wrong about this statistical figure.

In the 1991 primary election for Louisiana governor, Duke received more votes than the incumbent Republican candidate. He then faced a runoff election with the outrageously corrupt former Democratic governor Edwin Edwards. Duke finished the election with 39% of the vote but when you consider the fact that the population of Louisiana is over 33% black that 39% looks quite respectable for an openly WN candidate.

All said he received over 55% of the white vote, and that sent spasms of terror through Jewish colons all the way from New York to Tel Aviv. That's why Jews HATE David Duke, and why no other white leader can come close to matching Duke's accomplishments in recent memory.

JohnAFlynn
12-19-2006, 08:45 PM
Do you honestly think the majority of people like David Duke? I'm not even talking about jews. Just the majority of non-jewish whites.

Oh, I see. So you determine who you like and support and who you vehemently hate, on the basis of jewsmedia polling, or popularity contests. You must really hate Hitler then, and Dr. Pierce. Hell, Jared "jews look White to me" Taylor isn't too popular either. Are you going to throw him under the bus too. You sound like someone who doesn't really have any beliefs of your own but you are simply attempting to do what you think others around you will find "respectable."



This is why I just then show that I'm not jewish and it completely discredits these people...I have neither a jewish mom nor a jewish last name by birth, nor have I performed any conversion, so I'm not jewish in any way.


That's the weirdest damned disclaimer of jewiness I've ever heard. Do you have a jewish Dad? How about jewish grandparents??? "last name by birth" WTF?!? Were you adopted into a family of jews, and now have their adopted last name? Are you a shiksa who has married a kike and now have his last name? WTF does that mean? :confused: :confused:

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 08:51 PM
Oh, I see. So you determine who you like and support and who you vehemently hate, on the basis of jewsmedia polling, or popularity contests.
False. I do not use success or failure as a criteria for right and wrong. I don't appreciate this misrepresentation of my position.

That's the weirdest damned disclaimer of jewiness I've ever heard. Do you have a jewish Dad? How about jewish grandparents??? "last name by birth" WTF?!? Were you adopted into a family of jews, and now have their adopted last name? Are you a shiksa who has married a kike and now have his last name? WTF does that mean?
LOL no.

Hermetic
12-19-2006, 08:53 PM
The proof of the harmful nature of the jew to the West is volumes. As for the "thier not all bad" debate, I find it interesting how people will point out the liberal type whites for always pulling that card up in respect to the blacks and see the flaws in that defeated thinking. But turn around and do the exact same line of thinking for jews.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 08:53 PM
The proof of the harmful nature of the jew to the West is volumes. As for the "thier not all bad" debate, I find it interesting how people will point out the liberal type whites for always pulling that card up in respect to the blacks and see the flaws in that defeated thinking. But turn around and do the exact same line of thinking for jews.
Blacks aren't all bad, they simply are different from us.

JohnAFlynn
12-19-2006, 08:55 PM
If your roof is falling in because of dry rot in your rafters you don’t spend time on lengthy discussions about woodworm in your basement. The over discussion of the Jewish influence in politics and culture in White Nationalist forums is a direct result of its non-discussion anywhere else.

David Duke sounded a lot more lucid than George Galloway. If you check the comments on youtube you will see that there are dozens of comments from people who claim to hate Duke’s racist opinions, people whom I assume are leftists, who nevertheless applaud Duke’s courage in standing up to the Jewish lobby. Duke’s perceived anti-Semitism may not be as much of a liability as some people seem to think.

It's not a liability at all. Especially since today people (most young people anyway) don't exclusively watch television, but get much of their info from non-jew sources. I'm a practicing attorney. I've had conversations with colleagues about the inordinate jew influence of our government, media, society, etc., the insane hypocritical stance of the U.S. in slavishly supporting Israel no matter how many Palestinian kids they murder. Not a one has argued that I'm wrong, and most eagerly agree, acting as though they can suddenly talk about something they heretofore were not permitted to discuss. Only the jews vehemently oppose jew-naming. Everyone else just wants to avoid controversy. But when they realize that others understand the jews too, fear of jew hate-labeling will end. The jews' days are truly numbered, I feel.

JohnAFlynn
12-19-2006, 08:58 PM
The proof of the harmful nature of the jew to the West is volumes. As for the "thier not all bad" debate, I find it interesting how people will point out the liberal type whites for always pulling that card up in respect to the blacks and see the flaws in that defeated thinking. But turn around and do the exact same line of thinking for jews.

It's a fear-based, rather than logic-based argument. Folks like god123 are genuinely afraid of the anti-semitism card, though they have somehow managed to lose fear of the "racist" card.

il ragno
12-19-2006, 09:01 PM
Blacks aren't all bad, they simply are different from us.

Now I know you're insane.

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-19-2006, 09:04 PM
However blacks do have a disproportionately high crime rate, and disproportionately low iq. I have nothing against respectable blacks who do not try change the makeup of white society. People like Alan Keyes.

Starr
12-19-2006, 10:19 PM
As for the "thier not all bad" debate, I find it interesting how people will point out the liberal type whites for always pulling that card up in respect to the blacks and see the flaws in that defeated thinking. But turn around and do the exact same line of thinking for jews.

I had a feeling this might be brought up.
Blacks are what they are as a result of their genetics. That doesn't neccessarily make them "bad" and they also don't all fit a certain stereotype, but that does not mean they are compatiable with white society. The result is not good for them or us. In a similar way, when I say not all jews are bad(how many do you suppose are actively involved in certain destructive policies, for some kind of solely sinister purpose?) this also does not mean that their influence(which has been destructive, for us, yes) and the results of these influences, does not need to come to an end. What I object to is the idea that some people have in their minds, that they are all out to get me and when they get involved with an organization like Amren, for example, they are doing it out of some secret plan to take over and control the organization. These ideas to me are not reality, but far-fetched conspiracies and paranoia. I am quite willing to buy that they do so out of their own interests, as mentioned in another thread, yesterday, but those interests don't always have to revolve around "destroying" or "controlling" white gentiles, which some people seem to actually believe.

Fitz
12-20-2006, 12:53 AM
What I object to is the idea that some people have in their minds, that they are all out to get me and when they get involved with an organization like Amren, for example, they are doing it out of some secret plan to take over and control the organization. These ideas to me are not reality, but far-fetched conspiracies and paranoia.

David Duke takes the microphone at the Amren conference and politely asks the guest lecturer a question about Jewish involvement in the European immigration crisis and then....

Michael Hart, a squat, balding Jewish astrophysicist from Maryland, was not amused. He rose from his seat, strode toward Duke (who loomed over him like an Aryan giant), spit out a curse — “You f…ing Nazi, you’ve disgraced this meeting” — and exited.


Note that it wasn't Duke that called Hart a "f...ing Jew" before walking out of the meeting. It wasn't Duke accusing Jews of "disgracing the meeting" with their presence. As usual it was the Jews showing the intolerance and I assume forcing Taylor make his position clear regarding Duke and the Jewish Question.

If some people see that episode and what came out of it as Jews attempting to take over or control Amren I'd hardly call it far-fetched or paranoid.

shanemac
12-20-2006, 12:54 AM
can't find it on Youtube... anyone got the link?

Starr
12-20-2006, 01:17 AM
Note that it wasn't Duke that called Hart a "f...ing Jew" before walking out of the meeting. It wasn't Duke accusing Jews of "disgracing the meeting" with their presence. As usual it was the Jews showing the intolerance and I assume forcing Taylor make his position clear regarding Duke and the Jewish Question.

If some people see that episode and what came out of it as Jews attempting to take over or control Amren I'd hardly call it far-fetched or paranoid.

When I first read about this I, myself, said nearly the same thing you are saying here, but stepping back and looking at the situation, that was sort of a disruption of what was being talked about and whether we agree with Amren's position on jews or not, it was not an appropriate topic for the conference(and neither, will I add, was the response) There are plenty of other pro-white organizations out there that focus on the jew, they don't all have to. And just because one chooses to stay away from this does not mean they are controlled by jews.

leondegrance
12-20-2006, 01:51 AM
There are plenty of other pro-white organizations out there that focus on the jew, they don't all have to.

Time for another Miller cliche', but I think he's banned. :)

Starr
12-20-2006, 02:10 AM
Time for another Miller cliche', but I think he's banned. :)


"He who has learned the jews, but refuses to warn his kinsmen of the jewish menace, is an accomplice of the jews, and an accessory to jewish enslavement and genocide of the White Race."

leondegrance
12-20-2006, 02:46 AM
"And he who gives Miller money for a useless tabloid is a sucker." lol

kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman
12-20-2006, 02:48 AM
That's really all I ask. For people to respect the mission statements of organizations that don't share their opinion on how to approach jews. If you don't agree with an organization, don't join it. If you don't like organizations like amren, just don't show up do your own thing. Stop trying to change it.

When I first read about this I, myself, said nearly the same thing you are saying here, but stepping back and looking at the situation, that was sort of a disruption of what was being talked about and whether we agree with Amren's position on jews or not, it was not an appropriate topic for the conference(and neither, will I add, was the response) There are plenty of other pro-white organizations out there that focus on the jew, they don't all have to. And just because one chooses to stay away from this does not mean they are controlled by jews.
Dude, if someone came into the EURO conference and said that about Irish, Duke would have flipped sh*t. I don't agree with the angry obscenity but I completely understand it. Jared Taylor was more gentlemanly when he just politely but looking annoyed told Duke to "wrap it up." I don't know what to tell you, you don't go into an organzation that is 5% jewish (jews are only 2% of population) and has a favorable opinion towards jews and say that stuff.

il ragno
12-20-2006, 02:48 AM
"He who has learned the jews, but refuses to warn his kinsmen of the jewish menace, is an accomplice of the jews, and an accessory to jewish enslavement and genocide of the White Race."

You left out all the "GD"s, you fool! It doesn't work without the GDs!

Starr
12-20-2006, 03:13 AM
He doesn't use the "GD" when throwing out that old tired line. I copied it directly from one of his recent posts.:p

Kriger
12-20-2006, 03:49 AM
He doesn't use the "GD" when throwing out that old tired line. I copied it directly from one of his recent posts.:p

That's how one tells the difference between Miller and his speech writer.

Pure Miller is the dialog composed of strings of colorful (?) expletives. When posting what his speech writer tells him to say, it is virtually devoid of expletives.

This is how Miller conveys the illusion that he may be a rational man.

George W. uses these same tactics, minus the expletives.

:rofl:

Hermetic
12-20-2006, 04:07 AM
Put jew in there instead of black and you have the answer to the jew problem.


Blacks are what they are as a result of their genetics. That doesn't neccessarily make them "bad" and they also don't all fit a certain stereotype, but that does not mean they are compatiable with white society. The result is not good for them or us.


While the average small time jew is just a average normal person, the power of organized jewry is a very real fact. Much of the money that flows into the coffers of jewry is the donations and support of the little jews the jews are a tribe and practice natural kin altruism. The organized power structure of the jews hates you and me and views us as fit to serve them. Smart survival strategy is the understanding of groups vs groups, trying to find the nice ones and the their not all bad line is egoism and pretense. All the high ranking jews of today and some of the most destructive jews all started at the bottom and where born to those nice jews people love to talk about.

Blood is thicker then water.


In a similar way, when I say not all jews are bad(how many do you suppose are actively involved in certain destructive policies, for some kind of solely sinister purpose?) this also does not mean that their influence(which has been destructive, for us, yes) and the results of these influences, does not need to come to an end. What I object to is the idea that some people have in their minds, that they are all out to get me and when they get involved with an organization like Amren, for example, they are doing it out of some secret plan to take over and control the organization.


It is not paranoia it is reality, your thinking it is paranoia is far-fetched.

These ideas to me are not reality, but far-fetched conspiracies and paranoia. I am quite willing to buy that they do so out of their own interests, as mentioned in another thread, yesterday, but those interests don't always have to revolve around "destroying" or "controlling" white gentiles, which some people seem to actually believe.

Carlos Danger
12-20-2006, 04:15 AM
Wow, i knew he had made all kinds of "controversial" statements, but I really had no idea that he has said things like this. No wonder the media hates this guy with a passion. Interesting.
This quote stands out:
There is no difference in this sense between a J.C. MacPherson, a Deborah Lipstadt and an Adolf Eichmann.
Debbie must have loved that one.

Starr
12-20-2006, 04:28 AM
Vindex, I can agree with much of what you are saying in your main paragraph, except when it comes to lines like this:

The organized power structure of the jews hates you and me and views us as fit to serve them.

this is another idea I take issue with, that everything they do is based around some kind of plan that involves our servitute or destruction. They do what they do and involve themselves in certain things out of group self interests, many times that is going to collide with what is in our best interests, yes, and this has been destructive to us, but I do not buy this idea that this is rooted in some sinister need or desire to get us, for lack of a better term. It is not about what is bad for us, it is about what is best for them. The former is like a persecution complex that many among us have. these ideas and theories that I have seen expressed have many parallels with how blacks think of whites.

JohnAFlynn
12-20-2006, 04:49 AM
Vindex, I can agree with much of what you are saying in your main paragraph, except when it comes to lines like this:



this is another idea I take issue with, that everything they do is based around some kind of plan that involves our servitute or destruction. They do what they do and involve themselves in certain things out of group self interests, many times that is going to collide with what is in our best interests, yes, and this has been destructive to us, but I do not buy this idea that this is rooted in some sinister need or desire to get us, for lack of a better term. It is not about what is bad for us, it is about what is best for them. The former is like a persecution complex that many among us have. It sometimes begins to sound very much like how blacks think of whites.

You only feel this way HG, because you are projecting your own Aryan values onto the jews. They don't think the same way we do. Where you and I are mainly concerned about our own people, and if left alone by others, we would be happy to leave them alone, the jews have shown, by their behavior, that they are parasites. They require a host goyim population to leech off of and ultimately destroy. Not because it is necessarily in their best interests to destroy us, but because it is simply their nature. It's like the story of the Scorpion and the Frog:

http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.


The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river. Self destruction - "Its my Nature", said the Scorpion...

Dances with Wolves
12-20-2006, 04:54 AM
You only feel this way HG, because you are projecting your own Aryan values onto the jews. They don't think the same way we do. Where you and I are mainly concerned about our own people, and if left alone by others, we would be happy to leave them alone, the jews have shown, by their behavior, that they are parasites. They require a host goyim population to leech off of and ultimately destroy. Not because it is necessarily in their best interests to destroy us, but because it is simply their nature. It's like the story of the Scorpion and the Frog:



Starr can't grasp that concept, John. Many whites can't. It's like lying. Many white's can't grasp the concept of the big lie, just like Uncle Wolf said. The can't grasp it because it's just not in the genetic makeup of Aryans.

It's a very real vulnerability on our part and will destroy us in the end.

Hermetic
12-20-2006, 07:24 PM
As pointed out each racial group has their own genetic behaviours, the jews are destructive and they are unbalanced and psychologically ill, control freaks. The jews are as a whole are driven by mental illness. Best call them schizo with a god complex.

What you call sinister they call their birth right as gods chosen it is ingained in them. Their talmud is just a physical extension of their mindset. Every jew carries thousands of years of jewish evolutionary memory it is what they are.

I have a book which is a medical text on the jews it was wrote by jewish doctors and deals with hundreds of case studies on the host of illness the jews have from physical to psychological. It is around four hundred pages of jews explaining how jews are nuts they even comment of how schizoid mental behaviour is so common among jews it could be considered normal for them as a tribe.




Vindex, I can agree with much of what you are saying in your main paragraph, except when it comes to lines like this:
this is another idea I take issue with, that everything they do is based around some kind of plan that involves our servitute or destruction. They do what they do and involve themselves in certain things out of group self interests, many times that is going to collide with what is in our best interests, yes, and this has been destructive to us, but I do not buy this idea that this is rooted in some sinister need or desire to get us, for lack of a better term. It is not about what is bad for us, it is about what is best for them. The former is like a persecution complex that many among us have. these ideas and theories that I have seen expressed have many parallels with how blacks think of whites.