I was originally scheduled to speak at the National Tea Party Convention, but have been snowed in. A political activist from Alaska was found at the last minute to fill in for me at the event, but I would like to go ahead and share the speech I prepared with the good folks at Occidental Dissent.
Like many of you with me this evening, I supported Ron Paul before supporting Ron Paul was cool. I threw $20 at his first money bomb, the one which sent the first ripples of surprise through the political community. I voted for Ron Paul even though Indiana’s primary took place long after the race had been decided. I voted for Chuck Baldwin because I refused to vote for warmongers and bankster puppets.
But that was all back when they were laughing at us. That was when they wrote us off as delusional cranks whose efforts were a distraction from the important work that John McCain and his Washington establishment were doing. But who’s laughing now? For the first time in living memory, the Middle American people are waking up, paying attention, and even hitting the streets.
This changes everything.
*Applause*
As Gandhi once said in his own struggle for his own people: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they lose. The enemies of our American nation have stopped laughing. We should celebrate how far we’ve come, but we should realize that the fight has barely started. The political establishment, both the liberal Democrats and their fake opposition in the GOP, will come for us. The lobbies of the multinational corporations, the global bankers, the foreign governments, and the ethnic interest groups will try to buy some of us, silence some of us, and even persecute some of us.
Think about the trillions and trillions of our dollars the government has been throwing at other people. Who are these other people? If we seriously threaten that transfer of wealth, they’re going to come at us like cornered animals, fighting for their collective entitlements. They’ll call us names, tempt us to accept compromises, and even send masked thugs to assault us. But worst of all, they’ll take away the one thing many of you crave the most: your status and your respectability.
The smart money is on this whole movement imploding on itself as soon as you all feel your respectability threatened. We’re all against the bailouts, the deficits, and the rising taxes. But few of us realize that the organizations and institutions with a stranglehold on the American status competition game are the same ones bleeding us dry. Do you have the courage and focus to keep fighting when the entire media is laughing at you, all the “experts” are scoffing at you, and all the government bureaucrats are treating you like a criminal?
*Awkward Silence*
That’s what happens when you’re actually threatening the system.
At this point, you’re all a potential threat, but you’re not a real threat…yet. Many of you sitting here today support the imperial wars in the Middle East, nation-building favors for the Israel Lobby. You hold a conviction that the budget must be balanced in the same brain that you hold a conviction that we must govern the entire world by force. These conflicting beliefs can only exist for so long in such a small space before one overtakes the other. Choose life.
And at some point, you’ll have to own up to the identity issues. You’ll have to admit to yourselves that Jewish lobbyists are sending our sons and daughters to die in the desert. You’ll have to admit to yourselves that the recent economic bubble was orchestrated by Jewish bankers in collusion with Jewish congressmen and a Jewish Federal Reserve. In order to stop it from happening, you’ll have to openly discuss the actual people who are raiding our coffers and hijacking our military. You’ll have to admit that the Mexican invasion is more than a paperwork issue. You’ll have to forget the drug problem and admit the thug problem.
We can only be taken seriously if we stop speaking in code and start speaking like grown men and women. Therein lies the rub, ladies and gentlemen. You have a choice. You can choose to be respected or you can choose to be taken seriously. You can have respect or you can have honor, but you can’t have both. In fact, being respected is a sure sign that you’re not a serious threat.
We’re all in this together and we’re in this for far more than a balanced budget. We’re in this for even more than the fate of our republic. We’re in this for the fate of ourselves: White Americans. Look around you, stand up for a second and turn in a circle. The media jackals have been giggling about it for months and the “experts” are all upset about it, but none of us will dare to admit the glaringly obvious: that we’re all glaringly White. We’re a people, and not just any people. We’re the people who created this country and the only people to whom it will ever rightfully belong. We are the progeny to whom this republic was entrusted by the founding fathers.
Now, everybody wants to hijack this tea party movement, and we White Advocates are no exception. The libertarians think they own you. The GOP thinks it owns you. Fox News thinks it owns you. Sarah Palin thinks she speaks for you. But you will all get to decide for yourselves, as individuals, which direction to go when the powerful groups destroying our country force you to either go radical or go home. We in the growing White Advocacy movement are there to fight for you and your family against our enemies, not for principles against abstractions and code words.
When an honest White cop is verbally assaulted by Obama’s Black racist friend, Obama jumps in with his own verbal assaults. When Obama goes to church, his preacher damns America and the White men who created it. When Ron Paul questions the wisdom of invading Iraq, he’s accused of anti-Semitism. Don’t let the handful of Uncle Toms in attendance tonight distract you from what you know to be true: that we are a nation, with a great country, that other people are stealing from us in broad daylight.
If you’re serious about taking it back, I invite you to join me.
Fred,
I’m not a part of the dispute between you and Kievsky. I was trying to trigger a discussion about the best pro-White websites and you turned it into something reminiscent of VH1 reality show nonsense. The discussion is right up above this for anybody who would like to discern the nature of the dialogue. They’re welcome to decide for themselves.
I don’t typically delete stuff and I don’t care to get in a debate with you about comment moderation. In fact, I don’t want to get in a debate with you about anything. I would prefer that you refrain from commenting on my posts. Hopefully, you’ll honor my request and that will be the that.
They get Jews and Jew-stuff utterly, wildly wrong much of the time, Robert. I don’t have examples in my head right at the moment — I’m sure Jupiter knows what I’m talking about. Btw I don’t like the term “WNs” because I see them — I see us — as ordinary normal people, nothing special, certainly nothing in need of any special group name, merely the opposite of the el-sicko degenerates on the other side, but of course I use “WN” too when I need to for communication, just as you do. No biggie, I just wanted that on the record.
It’s like the line in that pro-Jewish 1940s movie with Gregory Peck, I forget the name, where his child asks him, “Are Jews bad?” and he replies, “Some are. Some aren’t — they’re like everyone else.” That’s essentially it, Robert. Yeah there are lots of really obnoxious ones. There are lots of really great ones. There are lots of in-between ones. “They’re like everyone else.” (“Only more so,” as Auster says.) On the whole I like Jews. The role they’re playing in race-replacement however is unspeakable evil and genocide and has to be, first, talked about, exposed, thoroughly aired no matter how much they yell and scream, then it has to be stopped with or without the help of some of them.
Be glad to.
Your weak reasoning belies this. I don’t know whether you have or not, but your arguments are easily refuted by a reading of his work.
You ought to inform the rest of academia: if MacDonald’s work is as sloppy as you claim, they would be more than eager to make an example out of his work in an academic context. So far, they have not. But you want us to believe you have way more insight than the entire cadre of the Marxist left in academia. Heh.
What document? How come you don’t name it?
In other words, you morally object to David Irving. Do you have an actual substantive criticism of him?
But you wont tell us of these alleged blunders, will you?
Example, please.
This is a misdeed? Academics is, by definition, selecting evidence.
Chronology is not a substantive argument against a body of knowledge.
If you actually have read any selection of Kevin MacDonald’s works, you would see quite plainly where he examines alternative hypothesis and gives his opinion why he doesn’t believe they provide an adequate explanation.
This statement alone is enough for me to firmly believe you have ready essentially nothing of Kevin MacDonald’s works and instead are attacking him because you just don’t like his generally known stance on Jewish influence.
This isn’t a particularly convincing indictment of MacDonald. You have two Jews, Jaff Schatz and David Lieberman, who clearly have a personal attachment to discussions of Jewish identity, who do not appreciate MacDonald’s emphasis on Jewish influence. Essentially, the core of their argument is that MacDonald spends too much time talking about Jews and not about non-Jews, and that they accuse MacDonald of making claims that MacDonald really isn’t making (for example, MacDonald discusses Jewish communists but makes no such claim that they are all Jewish, but Lieberman wants to convince the reader this is what MacDonald meant).
They are entitled to their opinion and biases, but by no means is this a convincing indictment of MacDonald or the quality of his scholarship.
What part of this are you actually citing as an indictment of Kevin MacDonald? Be careful, Yosemite, you might open a can of worms here!
You really zinged him that time!
Yosemite,
I have replied to your latest post here but it will take some time for it to be approved due to it being caught in the spam filter (I quoted your numerous links). So you wont see it for a while, but it will eventually appear previous to this one.
Do you have anything to say regarding my quotation of MacDonald in response to your earlier post before that? I don’t expect you to sit here and debunk the entirety of his trilogy (it is rather exhaustive), but the least you could do is demonstrate for us on this one issue, the role of Jews in the liberalization of immigration policies in the 20th century, why Kevin MacDonald is wrong or has a flimsy argument in regards to his particular position on the matter?
If you’d like, we could discuss his sources and the reasoning behind the inclusion of such sources (and analysis thereof). You could also present for us any sources that you believe bolster your point and/or weaken Kevin MacDonald’s (but I would ask that you compare it directly to the sources MacDonald references and tell us why his source doesn’t cut it).
We eagerly await.
Jupiter;
“I do not want to flood America with Spaniards,Bulgarians and Greeks.”
So to you these people aren’t white either, huh? What region/locality of the globe do white people have to come from for you to “approve” of them being white? You might like to know that not all caucasians are the color of a sheet of paper. Iranians are classified as caucasian, and that makes them white as far as I am concerned. If you googled Iran and took a look at some of the people, you can see it for yourself. You are an illiterate buffoon.
Dude, snowed in?!?!?!? That’s weak! That speech you’d worked up really ought to have been heard come hell or high water. Look, I work at a powerplant and we have to be there come hell or high water. The survival of our people is much more important than just keeping the lights on.