10 Lessons the US should learn from Iraq defeat

Oh really?? Look at this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5JDz34cac&feature=fvsr"]The Jonestown Death Tape, Rev. Jim Jones. Pt 3/5 - YouTube[/ame]
be.

 

This is a common error. An ideology is a component of culture.
Cultures are ideas and ways of living particular to a people.
People do not exist to perpetuate a culture. The culture is a set of tools, some of them behavioral, to benefit and perpetuate the physical people who invented the culture.
Belief in marriage, children and the sanctity of life are elements of a culture.
They are looked upon as good because they allow the people to prepetuate and thrive.
That's why our cultural founders said; "...the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

It's "Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, white childrens countries for everyone."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfB_F936bU8"]WHITE GENOCIDE - YouTube[/ame]

 

Those 10 lessons are so right. Thanks Stephen Walt, and thanks Abu for posting this.

In the late '90's I thought the one positive outcome of the Vietnam War was that we'd learned our lesson about starting worse than useless wars on false premises.

But then I never contemplated we'd elect a clueless imbecile like Junior Bush who became putty in the hands of amateur hour neocons and chickenhawks like Paul Wolfowitz.

Meanwhile, it looks like the congressional repubs and their nitwit presidential candidates are pissing their collective pants trying to get us into another one with Iran.

Re-read those 10 lessons carefully, folks.

 

Hey colored girls
White pride
Give it a ride.

 

I agree with you.

 

Yet all Muslims and Arabs are not. Since there genocide proposers, genocide committers and genocide defenders amongst US citizens, that unqualified distinction makes you a racist. By responding to a committed racist I prove some of your claims below to be unfounded.

An unjustified hollow 'clang'.

I exclude only the opinions of those who are unable or unwilling to support their opinions with facts and logical reasoning. Show otherwise. The first point shows that you are different.

Of unqualified belief in ‘Murkan hegemony? Sure. Check at your first quote at the beginning. For a more scholarly treatment, see “Hegemony and Survival” (Penguin) by Noam Chomsky. For instance, see his analysis of Robert Keagan’s views in Chapter 2.

Your first quote above grants consideration to all ‘Murkans irrespective of circumstances, but not to others. Nuff said

Your attempt at spin deflection is transparent. Saddam claimed it. Blix inspected it. Saddam was proved to be correct. You lose.

Obviously woefully insufficient.

Did you want another example of how you play fast-and-loose with the ethical face of democracy? You seem to think that the term solely has to do with voting statistics.

See previous comment … rinse and repeat

And he ultimately did. See previous 2 comments. Rinse and repeat.

According to ‘Murkan leaders they do. Your view is fringe. You lose.

More deflective spin. I never defended his right to rule. You running out of ammunition perhaps?

Bravo!! Neither did the While Afrikaner Apartheid nationalists in South Africa. They had the balls to put their beliefs into law. You just ignore the law. Score 1 for them; zero for you. Are you in good company?

But it was just their version of defence. You are not very consistent, are you, except in your racism. By the way you left out "why ‘Murkans trumpet democracy and human rights but perform Mai Lais, Bagdad markets, Fellujahs, etc." When we add that to your list, the company becomes clear.

I know. So did the others you mentioned in the last portion.
If once the Shiites were able to organize a majority for the idea to anhiliate Sunni Arabs (or simply keep moderates from the vote by murder and terror), would that be a working democracy?

 

That sort of nonsense is inevitable when you use a narrow mechanistic view of democracy, which is the foundation of many of Sadistic Savior's posts.

 

That is why I like a democratic republic.
Bob Whitaker has taught us that 70% of any population will go along with and even champion views just because they feel those views are popular. They don't think on there own.
Perhaps 25% will change their minds and go against the ruling orthodoxy if they are given good facts and a logical argument to do so.
There are only 5% of any population who are true free thinkers. People who will ferret out their own facts and think on their own.
The reason only 5% are free thinkers and 70% are slavish followers of fashion is, if everyone were a free thinker you could never have a stable unified society.
That's were the republican aspect of American government comes in. Our people have been conditioned by two centuries of republicanism to allow everyone free speech, at least legaly allow it. Keeping your job or web access is another matter.
There is one caveat. Even the 70% who we pro-white dissidents call "sheeple" will react in self defense when they see a gun barrel 6 inches in front of their nose. With the rapid on going displacement of whites in all their home lands we dissidents are begining to find it easier to wake our fellow whites up to their programed genocide. The genocide "Sadistic" openly approves of.

It's Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, white childrens countries for everyone.

 

What exactly are the "white children's countries"?

Who exactly said that Asia should be only for Asians? Or that Africa should be only for Africans?

And Bob Whitaker bases this on...what? If slavery became popular you believe I would suddenly support slavery?

If what Bob Whitaker said was true, then no society would ever change. Because only popular ideas would remain dominant. Blacks would still not be allowed to vote. The empirical evidence shows that Bob Whitaker is wrong.

As is evidenced by the many pro-white politicians that are being elected now.

Oh...wait a minute...

 

Um...no. You can take that to mean Israel.

I could post many more. But they are all pretty consistent with each other. I am not in the minority on this issue among Americans.

Well, according to Bob Whitaker, it is popular to hate racists now. And 70% of the people will follow whats popular. So it appears changing minds will be a futile effort on your part, according to Bob Whitaker.

So what? That is not any evidence of a conspiracy against you...that is evidence that your ideas are offensive or unappealing to most people. "The Jews" are not what make you lose social standing or get you fired...it is your own ideas that do that.

Yes, NAMBLA think of themselves in the same way I am sure.

In the US it is a lot more unpopular to criticize blacks than Jews.

They often go hand in hand. I'm not saying you have mental problems simply because you are a conspiracy theorist. I am just saying it is a lot more likely.

The ethnicity or religion of the authors does not make their ideas any LESS on the fringe.

I hear that argument from racists on here a lot. "OMG this is obviously true because even Jews are saying it". Yeah, a few isolated nuts in the Jew communities. They no more represent Jews than white racists represent whites.

Also, Jews are a lot more tolerant of dissenting opinions than white racists are. You will never see white people within white racist comminties say things like "you know maybe the Jews are right and black people aren't so bad after all". At least not openly. At best it is likely to get them kicked out one way or another.

If white people want to go back where they came from, I am ok with that. Europe can stay white with my blessing if thats what they want.

Really.

The fact that white people are choosing of their own free will to breed outside of their race is not evidence of a genocide against white people. That argument is unbelievably retarded.

I am providing evidence that I am not the only one that finds your ideology unappealing. You keep making the NAMBLA argument that just because an idea is offensive doesn't mean it has less merit than popular ideas. I disagree. Not all ideas are equal.

I am happy it will result in fewer racists, yeah.

LOL, a Mensa level IQ! Wow, then he must be right! After all, no one with a Mensa level IQ has ever embraced an anti-racist stance before, right?

How did you determine I am anti-white? I have never expressed a hatred of anyone based on skin color. I have expressed hatred based on ideology (beliefs). They are not the same thing.

This is more projection on your part. You seem to be tacitly admitting that your argument cannot have substance unless you put words in my mouth.

Mainstream science rejects the idea of distinct races. Because there is no consensus on where one race ends and another begins.

If there is often more genetic variation within racial groups than between them, I am not sure how you could really define any one race. When I say "white", that is a very generalized and broad definition. Lots of "white" people in the US have American Indian ancestry for example.

So in order to say there is such a thing as a white race, you would first have to define it. So far over the years every single racist on this forum, without exception, has failed to do that. So good luck.

My actual hope is for an end to all races...I am not singling out whites.

It sure seems to be, but not because of any effort on my part. White people are choosing to do this themselves.

And actually, the end of all races is inevitable. The amalgamation of Humanity cant really be stopped at this point.

 

It is not an error merely because you declare it to be an error. It is the other way around IMO...culture is based upon the collective ideology of individuals that make it up.

 

American ones are. When have I ever even implied differently?

So long as you ignore what I actually said, you are correct.

...as you define it. Uh huh.

So your source is the opinion of a single author. Got it.

So you have no quote. Ok.

I think it has to do with the actual definition of the word. Not your personal opinions.

Why did you use the qualifier "ultimately"?

No they dont. We only pay lip service to the idea of the sovereignty of non-democracies. Our actions have made that clear.

Yes, we invaded Iraq and replaced it's government because my view is fringe. LOL

I never knew I had that much control over the American government.

I ignore any foreign law, yes. I do not recognize any foreign authority over us.

What racism is that? Quote please.

 

To clairify my self, the error is in believing a people exist to perpetuate a way of doing things, to pertpetuate a culture, to perpetuate and ideology.
Culture and ideology are tools invented by people to enhance their survival, perpetuation and welfare.
Here I am using the word cutlure to mean ideas and physical tools.
Ideas and tools are to serve the people who invent or make them.
The maker of a tool doesn't exist for the benefit of the tool. That's the assertion I'm making.

 

I agree with that.

 

White chlidrens countries are were most children are white. It can also be determined by the places leftist are pushing for third world immigraition and assimilation.
No one has made an effort to push third world immigration on Japan or Taiwan or any other non-white majority country for instance.

Immigration is part one of the program of genocideing whites out by assimilation.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Vq_e2Z1ug"]Barbara Lerner Spectre and jewish implementation of multiracial multiculturalism in the Europe - YouTube[/ame]

 

So it is not a static definition. If Europe became mostly non-white you would no longer consider them white children's countries.

Because there is no demand to move there.

You forgot to put "genocideing" in quotes.

 

People don't try to move to Japan from poor countries because Japan won't let them in. It is only white countries that are being brainwashed to allow their own displacement and assimilation out of existence.

Here is Bob's short thorough depiction of the anti-white genocidal program.

BOB'S MANTRA
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."


"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."


"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"


"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"


"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"


"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."


"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

 

How did you determine that they were "brainwashed"? Explain to me the difference between someone being "brainwashed" and someone simply not agreeing with you.

Your statements seem to indicate that you think any white people who dont agree with you must be brainwashed by default.

Who is "Everybody"?

No one I know says there is a race problem. I would like to know the source of Bob's claim that "everybody" thinks there is a race problem and that "everybody" wants non-whites to move to white dominated nations as fast as possible. Who exactly is saying that only "white" nations should allow non-native immigration?

Does Bob have any actual source for this or are you just taking Bob's word for it?

From what I have seen "everybody" is not saying that. Only white racists are saying that. White racists are not "everybody".

According to Bob. Bob is ignoring what they are actually saying, and instead projecting his own personal opinion of what he thinks they "really" mean....as if they actually said it.

You do not find that a little disingenuous? Bob does not appear to care about the actual opinions of anyone who does not agree with him. Bob simply wants a platform to base his propaganda on.

 

The above are all examples of your "argument" from "my views are popular, your views are unpopular"

But here you slip into the “popularity doesn’t make a view right” mode.

““Bob Whitaker bases this on...what? If slavery became popular you believe I would suddenly support slavery?”



You can’t argue from both directions.

But the 900 lb guerilla in the living room still is:

It’s Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and white children’s countries for everyone.

 

What exactly is your counter argument? "My views are different therefore they must be correct"?

The popular argument is correct by default. If you are saying everyone else is wrong, you are the one expected to provide the evidence. Your positions are not correct by default.

Yes, if you keep repeating it, it will eventually become true. "Everybody" is saying Asia is for Asians...why, Bob Whitaker even told me so. What more evidence do I need?

The 900lb gorilla is a hallucination only you can see.

 

All of your above quotes indicate you think white genocide by assimilation is ok because it is "voluntary"

My point, if you watch the Jones Town massacre on you tube, is the mass suicide Jones was able to brainwash his 900 parishoners into is the psychological equivalent of whites being brainwashed by main stream media to assimilate themselves out of Existence. Jones was guilty of mass murder by psychological manipulation. They are both “voluntary.”
Leftist and main stream media are guilty of white genocide by psychological manipulation.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5JDz34cac&feature=fvsr"]The Jonestown Death Tape, Rev. Jim Jones. Pt 3/5 - YouTube[/ame]

It's "Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and white childrens countries for everyone."

 

The sad fact is, most people won't accept a truth until they've heard it often enough.
You aren't the only one's reading my post.

And as to your "argument from popularity" I'm not saying my ideas are corrrect because of their popularity. I say individual and group survival are good ideas for an individual and for a group.
That is why Israel doesn't allow non-Jewish immigration.
That is why Japan allows no immigration.

And lastly, the views you post are not vaild just because they may be popular.
And as can be pointed out, you slipped into "slavery was popular but wrong" quote earlier, which is where you did a 180 from using the "my idea is right because it is popular" argument.

The plain as the nose on your face fact is, main stream media pushes third world immigration on all white countries and only on white countries.
It's Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans and white childrens countries for everyone.

 

There is a very simple answer to the decline of the white population in Europe and North America: they aren't having enough kids. High living standards and birth control (including abortion) apparently reduce the birth rate - in many places below the replacement level. This is true in Japan as well for the Japanese, but they are so xenophobic they would rather develop robots than have too many non-Japanese Japanese.

Since the other developed nations (virtually all predominately white) do not want declining populations, non-white immigration has been inevitable. When you add in that immigrant families and poor families do have more kids (at levels the whites were having a couple of generations earlier) the trend is clear.

Is this a plot against the White race? Of course not. If white supremacists want to revive white numbers, they should work to seriously decrease the standard of living for whites and strike down abortion. That ought to put the numbers back up.

 

Why did you put "voluntary" in quotes? Are you saying it is not really voluntary?

I actually did not say that anyway. I said that I do not consider voluntary breeding to be genocide anyway. I rejected the premise of your question. It cant be "ok" or "not ok" because it is not possible anyway.

So tell me...how exactly would I distinguish between you and Jones? How do I know you are not also trying to brainwash people?

You are doing many of the same things he did...you project opinions as if they are facts. You read your own meaning into other people's statements. How exactly are you different from him?

Guilty by who? Who found him guilty of that?

All those people were responsible for their own actions. No one forced them to follow him. They did it entirely of their own free will. Why are you trying to absolve them of responsibility for their own actions?

On a side note, that is a common theme I see with white racists on here...nothing is ever their fault. Not even their own bad choices. They are the masters at blaming everyone else for their own problems.