Saturday, May 08, 2010

ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people

Dennis Mangan posted an article where he claims that "Jews were greatly over-represented among the early revolutionaries and later among the leaders of the Soviet Union, including the various incarnations of the secret police." I have heard this claim over and over by Eastern European commenters over at Gates of Vienna, not only about the Jewish dominance in the Soviet Union but in Bolshevism all across Eastern Europe. But is it really so? If it is, Dennis Mangan is making several points that are right on target in his article.

Dennis' brother Dave entered the discussion bringing up the Holodomor, that is the forced starvation of some 7 million Ukranians in 1932-33. Which Dave Mangan claims was enacted by Jewish commissars. But was it really so? Well, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency it was. They write about how in July 2008 the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of the high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine, and most of the names on the list were Jewish. (The Ukrainian Jewish Committee, however, called on the secret service to revise the list, which "incited interethnic hatred", in order to clear up the “inaccuracy”.)

But back to Dennis Mangan's article. It is interesting to find that his claims are backed up by someone I consider probably the most sound political thinker of the 20th century: Winston Churchill. Churchill published in 1920 an article named "ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people", where he detailed the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists and he appealed to what he called "loyal Jews" to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for "every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century". He also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky of wanting to establish a "world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination" in this article.

Under the subtitle of "Terrorist Jews" Churchill writes:
- - - - - - - - -

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
This backs the claims made by Dennis Mangan (and Slezkine, who he is quoting) by someone considered credible by most people (who counts). That should cue anyone in doubt about the Jewish character of Bolshevism to look more closely into the matter. Furthermore, this whole story, as suggested by Mangan, "puts a crimp in the Jewish notion that they have been unique victims, and in the notion that Germans have been uniquely evil."

Today the Jews that Churchill refers to as International and Terrorist Jews have shifted from Bolshevism onto multiculturalism, neoconservatism and other destructive internationalist causes (George Soros anyone?). So the same thing still applies, albeit in new shapes. Likewise, in my view, Churchill's endorsement of "national Jews" and Zionism is the remedy and the way forward. Churchill ends his article by writing:
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
So yes, Zionism is the answer. However, in these sick times even that isn't without issues and problems, especially for America . (More about the role of America and Israel in our current mythology here: four subsequent comments). Churchill, however, was all through his life a firm pro-Zionist (see Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship) which he was absolutely right to be.

In parallel to this discussion I'm having another discussion with Chechar (and to some extent Rollory). One of the problems I have with Chechar is the way he takes Hitler and Nazism as the starting point for the reconstruction of a revitalized and healthy Europe. I cannot understand why he wouldn't take Churchill (whose outlook largely harmonizes with Dennis Mangan's) as the starting point instead. For starters Churchill denounced and warned about Islam while Hitler and the Nazis admired it. Go figure....


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222
Polymath said...

(continued from previous comment)

You refused to answer this question, but it is critical. To answer it you need to commit yourself on
1) whether America is doomed to continue on its current path socially
2) whether, if it does continue on its current path, but does not suffer a catastrophic collapse, Europeans are too weak and stupid to break free of their own self-destructive policies because of the mesmerizing American influence
3) whether, if it does continue on its current path, but DOES suffer a catastrophic collapse, THEN Europeans are NOT too weak and stupid to break free of their own self-destructive policies.

To justify your attitude you have to answer affirmatively to ALL THREE of these. Do you see why? If you don't commit yourself to #1, you should be supporting the Alternative Rightist who wants to fix America socially, and therefore not mind HIS support of the tea partiers who are trying to fix America economically. If you don't commit yourself to #2, then fix your own damn continent and stop telling us to commit suicide. If you don't commit yourself to #3, then you're the ones who are doomed and it looks like you just want to being us down with you instead of letting us save ourselves.

So fine, let's say you accept my logic and affirm these 3 statements, and feel justified in telling Americans it is worse than useless to try to save America and they should probably just leave. Then comes my final question: HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE?

I've told you several times that I might come to the same conclusion as you about America in 5 or 10 years, but it is TOO SOON for that now. I told you things would be a lot clearer by 2014 or so, when we will see if the Republicans can get both Congress and the White House and move things to the right in a major way. (Republicans as a party are nothing special, but you have to START with them to get things far enough to the right that Alternative Rightists can then take it further to the right.) Given the events that have occurred since those conversations, I would think you should agree to wait and see a bit longer.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Ha, I know it is a logical fallacy, but I have to do it. If the surgeon cares more about the death rate of his patients, he would refuse to perform surgery on that guy if he doesn't have an adequate staff. :P Your assumption is that I care about America still being around as a political body. Sure, just like an IV, the tea party would make America as a political body exist more, but it is the current America, not another one.

And no, I don't do the liberal thing. You said that they aren't interested in social issues - if they wouldn't vote for me due to any position I have on social issues, than they are interested in them. And my Nazi analogy isn't stupid. Being an economist is as much of being a collaborator as supporting the current America is(and being indifferent to social issues is just that).

I did answer that question - maybe it is the case you didn't like my answer, which isn't something I can help you with.

And I don't mind one's support for the tea parties, I mind the movement overall because their message is stupid(its the same idiocy as the people who don't care about society as long as they are left alone). Oh, and as an American, you hardly are in a position to tell someone that they are stupid in regards to social issues - you, after all are the ones who fought a war and killed each other in order to free a completely different ethnic group, who later you made citizens and now they rape your women and leech on your government. At least we were shot and killed by you, we didn't kill ourselves over it.

Polymath said...

You're still not doing what I said and taking the point of view of a non-tea partier who cares about social issues and agrees with all your views about them, and telling him whether he should keep fighting, quit, or fight in the other direction to bring about a collapse. You may say you answered it but you didn't answer precisely that question, and that's the multiple-choice question you need to answer so I can make my other point. I laid it out very logically, there are 3 statements I believe you have to affirm if you answer the multiple-choice question the way I think you want to, and since you evaded that I presume you do affirm those 3 statements, which then means you have to confront my final epistemological question.

And you are too doing the liberal thing and driving a wedge, why do you insist people have to agree with you even on issues they don't care about and are not doing anything about? You seem to have accepted my contention that despite camera-hogs like Glenn Beck the tea partiers are fighting about economics and not social issues, but you still want to speculate about what they WOULD say about social issues if you confronted them with your less popular views in order to discredit them. That is bad practical politics. You insist on thinking that as a group they disagree with you on social issues, when compared to most Americans they are on your side, and as I said on the immigration issue in particular they are very definitely on your side. The real question is whether the tea partiers are helping or hurting on the social issues by fighting on the economic issues, and I claim they are helping because they are fighting against most of the same people the Alt-right social crusaders are fighting against.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

I didn't say people should agree with me on social issues, but if they are indifferent to social issues, they wouldn't care at all about my views on them. They wouldn't care what my stance on gay marriage is, my stance on those things I listed and so on. They would support me regardless of any of those, if I agreed with them on the economic issues. That's what being indifferent to social issues means. Heck, if I thought America should legalize slavery, they shouldn't care about it one bit.

And I don't have to take neither of your premises because your example is faulty. Fighting on social issues and economic issues are two different things, as I said before. Oh, and I don't support immigration restriction movements either, unless they are talking about immigration in general, not just illegals. I'd rather have open borders than this stupid in between crap since open borders is more likely to make people wake up.

Polymath said...

I agree about restricting legal immigration too. What we can do to wake people up is not open borders but just making the demographic facts so widely repeated that everyone knows them. Most people have no idea how bad the changing demographics have been because of extreme efforts to cover up the numbers. If I were a politician I would have the slogan "Numbers matter" (inspired by Enoch Powell's "Numbers are of the essence") and would have really striking amd memorable numerical comparisons in my ads. The government obscures things, for example by not separating European-origin whites from Arabs, Turks, Pakistanis, and so on. I would explode all the deception, like when the German government said immigration was small because they subtracted Germans leaving from foreigners coming in.

UltimateAwesomeness said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
UltimateAwesomeness said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
NY Untermensch said...

Polymath is right. Many Tea Partiers want to repeal the 14th Amendment that gave niggers citizenship.

Polymath, often Europeans have so much wounded pride from watching America eclipse the Old World that there is no reasoning with them.
Haven't you noticed that Rebellious Vanilla has blamed all Europe's problems on America? Welfare state? America. PC/MC? Not only America, but America's historical heritage. (I'm interested in seeing how she and Conservative Swede reconcile this with early American immigration law.) It's fun to talk out of one side of one's mouth saying Commmunism is so dysgenic, then talk out the other side saying it's not so bad because American democracy is worse. For all Rebellious Vanilla's protestations that she doesn't like fascism, she is paraphrasing the Russian fascist godfather Aleksandr Dugin.

Conveniently, Rebellious Vanilla apparently hasn't lived under Communism or in America, so WTF does she know? For all the fanfare about Russia having raised its birthrates to 1.4 per woman (including non-whites), America's white birthrates are higher (1.9 per woman) and the welfare is running out fast (thank God).

Of course, certain elements within America that have grown very powerful since the Progressive movement in the early 20th century have promoted multiculturalism. These elements have been brought to the forefront in the Obama Administration:

Minority Engagement Strategy

What is conspicuous is that the Obama Administration is everything the Tea Partiers aren't. If you go to a Tea Party, you will occasionally hear some idiot-- usually a female of the species -- talk about "our black and Hispanic brothers and sisters" or how she is "a Jewish-American". Note the Obama Administration is a minority occupation government.

However, most Tea Partiers are white reactionaries who resent virtually everything in American politics since the New Deal. You will find a lot of Tea Party logos on Stormfront, where I visit often.

Polymath said...

NY Untermensch, your interesting comment came to me in email but it's not here, probably the n-word you used triggered the spam filter. I am going to enjoy seeing how RV answers you when ConSwede liberates your comment. Thanks for the information about tea partiers; I knew that the ones shown on TV were not representative (just on principle that the MSM would misrepresent them) but I have not attended any rallies.

By the way, I don't see the point of using the n-word for blacks or some of the words WW has used for Jews. It doesn't make the discussion any clearer, all it does is signal that you have strong emotions. Although I don't mind the words myself, using them will encourage people to misunderstand you or dismiss you.

NY Untermensch said...


Thank you for your kind suggestion.

Unlike you, Rebellious Vanilla, Conservative Swede, and Wandering White I am racially Jewish.

I have discussed conversion to Christianity with white Christian Gentile friends, and they have all made it clear to me that I should not convert unless I truly believe in the articles of Christian faith. In fact, I don't believe in the Old Covenant, so I don't see how I can believe in the New Covenant.

(Although I am ethnically Jewish, I never underwent any rite of passage. Thus, according to my mother at least, I am not a Jew for Jewish purposes.)

By the way, I don't have any Jewish friends outside my blood family and the inevitable superficial New York social acquaintances. I get along better with people who don't think of themselves as victims in this country (e.g., Polish Catholics, Russian Orthodox, Southern Protestants).

I'm interested in your mathematical background, as I have taken vector analysis and a semester-long introduction to proofs as electives. Currently, I am taking matrix algebra.

Polymath said...

NYU, I am ethnically half-Jewish myself (my father grew up in NYC and converted to Catholicism in his 20's). I have a Ph.D. In math and have done research and worked professionally in lots of different areas of mathematics. My thesis work was in Logic and I currently do gaming math.

Polymath said...

I am seeing a lot of evidence that politics in America is broken, at least the traditional style of it. People on the left appear to be hysterically overreacting about things like the Wisconsin public-union-busting and Rep. Peter King's upcoming hearings on radicalization of domestic Muslims. The reason they are getting so violent and irrational is because they have finally figured out that it is not a failure to get their message out properly, it is that the benighted public rejects their message. Their noise machine has gotten quite transparent. Also, people like Breitbart an James O'Keefe on the right have figured out that provocation is the right strategy and should have been adopted as the main activity long ago, because the whole corrupt rotten leftist PC/MC crowd cannot stand the light of publicity when their true deeds and agenda are exposed, and they can no longer rely on the MSM to cover it all up for them. Entities like ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR, and the public sector unions are finally scurrying for cover like cockroaches but it's too late, the Republican House, which originates all spending bills, is going to stop the conspiracy between them and the Democrats they contribute to to divert taxpayer billion$ their way.

Although RV says politics is useless, it is not entirely useless yet here, as last November's election showed. However, the real action is going to be outside of traditional politics. We need more provocateurs like O'Keefe, and we need to break through the wall the MSM builds around any facts that don't fit the narrative. I think a good way to break down the wall is to use the fact that the more local the story is, the less they can cover it up (locally I mean, they cover it up for the rest of the country), so we have to go to the places where outrages have occurred and the affected people are not fooled by the media blackouts and distortions.

For example, here. The unstated assumption in the headline is that "sparking racial tensions" is a bad thing, bt I think that's an ideal thing to provoke. The leftists and the liberals have so far been successful with their WMD "stop or I'll call you a racist!" but it no longer works in cases where the facts are clear for everyone to see. Similarly, Muslims ought to be provoked at every opportunity, and vigilantes ought to do their own detective work and publicly name illegal aliens (it's not very difficult to detect them). And leftist organizations need to be infiltrated. And every liberal pundit and politician needs to be asked pointed questions to expose their own hypocrisy, for example "can you please tell me in which fields a statistical disparity is evidence of unfair discrimination and in which fields it is not? To get you started, here is a list of 100 professions for you to sort, including professional basketball players, firefighters, mathematicians, nurses, fashion designers, and your own office staff."

NY Untermensch said...


I agree with your last post.

Look at this:

Good Christian Women Should Boo

Someone really needs to firebomb ABC's offices during work hours to make those Marxist cretins pay in blood. Otherwise, the assault on Christianity will continue.

Polymath said...

NYU, your comment came through in email but the spam filter snagged it. Thanks for your comment on my last post, I hope others will comment on it too.

I will try to reproduce what you said in a way that won't anger the robot:

Look at this:

Good Christian Women Should Boo

Someone really needs to firebomb ABC's offices during work hours to make those Marxist cretins pay in blood. Otherwise, the assault on Christianity will continue.

that is no longer a link, just the title of a Brent Bozell column, so googling it and Bozell should work. The assault on Christianity is, in the case of Hollywood, largely a Jewish project, as Bozell hints subtly enough to get away with, and is therefore a good way to bring this very long thread back on topic.

ConSwede has informed me that he is having Internet service problems, so don't be disturbed by a delay in releasing your post. Now that your earlier post is out of jail, I look forward to responses to it.

NY Untermensch said...


For whatever it's worth, the French demographer Emmanuel Todd predicted the political collapse of the USSR for demographic reasons in his 1976 book "The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere". What is happening to Russia demographically is just the continuation of what happened under Communism.

If Rebellious Vanilla really hated the welfare state, she would detest the Soviet Union, which was even more extreme than the European welfare states in its economic lunacy (e.g., guarantee of employment to all citizens no matter how shiftless, militarization of the economy). But of course, she contradicts herself, saying on the one hand that she resents having to pay most of her income to the state, and on the other hand saying that economic issues don't matter. If it doesn't matter, she should go about her slavery happily like a typical social democrat. As for us, let us try to avoid such a fate, whether in America or -- if necessary -- in some other place.

As for your debate about "Left-liberal" with Wandering White: According to Wikipedia, Left-liberal means "social liberal" (as Wandering White correctly stated), which means a liberal who advocates the welfare state (which Wandering White got wrong). Such liberals tend to advocate pension schemes, human rights, women's rights, homosexual "marriage", etc.

Wikipedia mentions in passing that the predecessors of the social liberals in the (English) Liberal Party were the Gladstonian liberals, who advocated economic liberty and universla suffrage (i.e., classic liberals).

Thus, I tend -- at least based on the Wikipedia article -- to agree with Wandering White's initial understanding of "Left-liberal" as being used in contradistinction to "classic liberal".

NY Untermensch said...


Maybe the Tea Party is to blame for this:

Dar al Islam. The Mediterranean, the world system and the “wider EUrope”: Volume 1. The "Cultural Enlargement" of the EU and Europe's Identity

Dar al Islam. The Mediterranean, the world system and the “wider EUrope”. Volume 2: The Chain of Peripheries and the new Wider Europe

Fjordman: The Eurabia Code

Bat Ye'or: Eurabia

By the way, I completely agree with you that Hollywood anti-Christianism is a phenomenon that originated with Jewish hatred of Christianity and the goyim.

However, as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, the traditional Jewish phobias have spread beyond Jews, to an entire Mandarin class of self-appointed elites who are often Gramscian, multiculturalist Gentiles. For instance, Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, but Antonio Gramsci was as anti-Christian as anyone -- with his plans to destroy the "Christian soul" of Europe by sexualizing children --, and yet he was an Aryan son of the Albanian diaspora in Italy that fled the Ottoman Caliphate (i.e., the Arbereshe).

Polymath said...

NYU, my main argument with WW was his characterization of William Buckley as a left-liberal rather than just a liberal. In the USA the left-liberals have come to dominate the Democratic party.

RV may or may not want to bother defending herself, but you have to read her comments going a long way back, on other posts from this blog, to understand her way of seeing things. But it should have been clear she was speaking in relative terms -- of course economic issues make a difference and her views on economic issues are nothing you would disagree with, but taking a very broad view the social, cultural, and ideological currents matter much more and will end up determining what becomes of our society, so that it can be a mismanagement of effort and priorities to try to solve the economic problems without touching the social problems. The argument I had with her is that I said that people who are not capable of helping in the social and cultural struggles can still be making valuable contributions, while she sees them as propping up and enabling a sick society that ought instead to be encouraged to collapse. Which of us is right depends on whether society can be moved in the right direction without a catastrophic collapse; she says it can't; I don't say it can but I do say it's too early to tell and therefore we should still be trying to fix the society rather than destroy it.

I just saw your second comment. Those are excellent links. This particular phenomenon (EUrabia) is a true conspiracy, and if most ordinary Europeans ever realize exactly how they have been betrayed, why, and by whom, there will be violence of the most extreme sort.

Polymath said...

Ha. I just replied to two NYU comments I got in email which are in the spam jail. It looks like a fruitful discussion will have to wait until CS can manage his blog properly again.

UltimateAwesomeness said...

Polymath, I don't see any meaningful reform on the way in the US. Heck, the only problem Americans have with illegals is that they're illegal. Why not pass amnesty then? They would be legal and there would be no problem if the problem is the fact that they don't have an American passport and all that. I see no meaningful challenge to the current paradigm in America. Heck, Rand Paul said that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional earlier in his life and now backtracked on that. If the average conservative voter, you know, those motivated by the tea parties, was against the CRA, he'd have no reason to do that.

Also, for any meaningful reform to happen, all the reconstruction amendments would have to be repealed. Good luck with that.

And mind you, at least in Europe, it's the young people who dislike immigrants. Young Americans are all brainwashed about race.

I'd really like an answer to my question. Would the tea party endorse me if I wanted to repeal the CRA, fair housing act and all the other things I said here, if I agreed with them on economics? Because if not, then they are not indifferent to social issues, but supporters of the status quo.

Not only this, but without a change in what America does socially, her bankruptcy is a good thing. Unless America becomes a reactionary force(and mind you, this doesn't mean rambling about the Constitution, which is a liberal document to begin with), then her demise is good.

(I'd like to point out that if you can't see that the US Constitution is a liberal document, I won't waste my breath to chat with you, NYU)

And birth rates don't matter. First of all, whites in America include Semitic people. If you count the mean age of real whites, it's similar to Europe's, which means that the real white birth rates are similar to Europe's. Also, what do those 'high' birth rates do you when you are becoming a minority anyway? The problem isn't even our birth rates - it's that we have nonwhites around.

What's funny about America is that the regular Americans had more good sense than her founders.

NY Untermensch said...


Bill Buckley started as a self-described "anarchist", then drifted toward the paleoconservative/traditionalist Catholic right, then helped purge the reactionary right from the "conservative" movement. This was in evidence when he placed the anti-white fanatic Jonah Goldberg in the top position at National Review.

I would say Buckley was largely unprincipled, changing his positions as it was convenient for him. I was personally rejected from membership in Young Americans for Freedom, the anti-Communist organization he founded, after I sent an e-mail to the organization's chief saying that it was insufficient to focus on illegal immigration, and that we need to preserve America's white, Christian heritage.

I should have known better; this guy is a California Jew who wants to spread democracy in China and didn't even mention mass Third World immigration in his opening remarks at the meeting of YAF I attended.

Not only was I rejected, my friend who went with me was rejected although he said nothing other than that he liked capitalism. Funny thing is, I still get e-mails from these clowns asking for money. That's a lot of the "conservative" movement in a nutshell.

What's really funny is that this Jewish liberal is a Tea Party organizer. I don't think he wants to repeal birthright citizenship like the rest of America.

NY Untermensch said...

Rebellious Vanilla,

Low birthrates matter because you can't afford the elderly majority. When pension schemes come into play, there will be a mass exodus of skilled young people as the country goes bankrupt. The only good news is that Third World trash will stop coming as the country collapses.

The reason we are becoming a minority is that our elites like it that way. However, your argument that Americans' only problem with illegals is that they are illegal -- that is, that the whole thing is about a stupid technicality and we should just legalize the illegals so our country can die faster -- is bogus:

FAIR Public Opinion Polls

As you should be able to see from the above data, most Americans -- especially blacks and whites -- think we have too many immigrants, including legal ones. One of the common complaints by Americans is that immigrants take jobs Americans would otherwise do.

For example, America has plenty of good computer programmers, but so many computer programmers have come here on H-1B visas from Asia (especially from India), working for low wages, that there is simply no reason for an American to learn computer programming unless he wants to become a hacker or a computer scientist.

With respect to America's white birthrates, it's higher than on the Old Continent because America has more practicing Christians in the relatively agrarian South and Midwest, who tend to marry young and produce children. In the coastal regions, where there is less Christianity and less agriculture, birthrates are at European levels.

Jews are <2% of the US population. Arabs aren't counted, but they are mostly Christians and don't cause problems. Further, Jews' birthrates are below the national average.

As for the Constitution, it was written assuming a majority-Anglo population and the existence of slavery. The Amendments contain some stupid liberal things (e.g, birthright citizenship, women's suffrage). But my friends in the Tea Party -- and not everyone in the Tea Party is like us -- don't like these things. As for establishment of religion, you should recall that different types of Christians hated each other so much in those days that to establish "Christianity" would have been meaningless.

However, America's naturalization laws originally required that one be a "free white person" of good moral character.

I don't see why you should be so
fixated on destroying my country. You wrote "America not being reformed on the social issues means she is my enemy, which means I want her destruction." Then you said "Unless America becomes a reactionary force[...], then her demise is good." Why don't you destroy your own country, about which you have also complained a good deal? Or France? Or Germany?

I think you should withdraw your forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. But why don't you fix your own country? Haven't you noticed your country has been enslaved by the Euro-Arab axis, which is the antithesis of American patriotism?

UltimateAwesomeness said...

NYU, why should they though? I mean, if YAF is for freedom indeed, then the freedom of others to come work in America is a freedom too. A freedom that Americans should use violence against, but libertarians are fruitcakes to begin with in this regard. OMG, violence is evil. Boohoo.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 222 of 222   Newer› Newest»