Alex Knepper: Racist?

March 15, 2010 Matt Parrott Anti-Racism, Blogging, Conservatism, Neocons, Politics, White Nationalism 123

Alex:

How do you square up being in favor of racial profiling of Arabs with your stand against racial “collectivism”?

How come you haven’t, in your years of standing up to collectivism, written a single article critical of Zionism?

Are you opposed to deficit spending if it’s necessary to perpetuate the Iraq War?

Would you favor or oppose the right to selectively abort gay fetuses?

About Matt Parrott 98 Articles
Matt Parrott is a low IQ wignat LARPing costume clown.

50 Comments

  1. Actually, this is very interesting, because I think that most white nationalists have not much been exposed to a truly consistent anti-collectivist viewpoint. Most of them are used to hearing that whites should not seek their own ethnically-based homeland, but that blacks, Jews, and Arabs should.

    About this much, the white nationalists are absolutely right — this is hypocrisy of rank order and a vicious double-standard. Let me correct the record for the sake of all people who philosophically consistent: all claims to right based upon ethnicity are bullshit. European, black, Jew, or otherwise — bullshit.

    What’s glorious about humans is that, unlike the animals, we don’t have to simply adopt to our background. We can make our background adopt to us. We aren’t destined to be primitive tribalists.

  2. #38

    Who cares about this attention seeking fag libertardian? There are more important subjects to care about than some random Randroid bitch boy who gets paid by the neocon Jew Frum, subjects like the need to profile the Jewish Mafia Collective for extensive economic crimes against the White race.

    Says it all, seriously.

  4. >crypto aryan: Alex, I hope you stick around.

    Who didn’t see that one coming? Lolz.

  6. Don’t waste your time debating a Randian. It’s like spending time with an anarchist at a Crass concert: all the answers to everything is if people would just be more like me, me, me!

    Anyone who starts from the proposition that human beings are atomized individuals without organic connections except those they give their active consent to are starting from such a radically different position from us that there can be no real meeting of the minds.

    Don’t worry overmuch, though. There is a reason most Randians–like most fans of Chomsky–are around 25 or so.

  8. Landser:

    The
    Church
    of
    Satan?

    Err….sorry. That does….not…impress me.
    __

    Denise,

    You must of mistaken me for someone else here on the thread.

    I do not like whatsoever Anton Levine (‘LeVay’) – or anything he says.

  10. Hunter – the most interesting post (albeit not the funniest) on this thread is your Post #41.

    That’s so cool! Yay! Frum the Jew has had this really long, influential, genuinely malevolent career – and your Not So Humble blog gets more posts.

    That is excellent!

  11. Landser – I thought you were chiding me for my rather naughty Fag Club Bitchy post. (I used to hang around with a lot of homosexuals, back in my The-A-tuh Daze) You know, about engaging in civil debate, and all.

  12. Vercingetorix post #43 – that is a geniunely interesting question.

    Thank you Ms. Denise!

    I would like to see a sincere response, whether pro or con, from Mr. Knepper on how/why he feels about this?

    (I’ll repost the question for all to see what we are talking about):

    “So, out of fairness then, you Mr. Knepper must obviously be against ‘Holocaust Denial’ laws that IMPRISON people for merely speaking an opinion?”

  14. #55 Denise I also agree with you, they don’t make homos like they used to – I’ll take a Pim Fortuyn over these shabbos goyim anyday.

    I’m not against the gays but just because some queer gets a paycheck from a Jew doesn’t mean I have to take it seriously.

  16. Landser – I thought you were chiding me for my rather naughty Fag Club Bitchy post. (I used to hang around with a lot of homosexuals, back in my The-A-tuh Daze) You know, about engaging in civil debate, and all.

    Denise,

    You are always an exception to this general call for ‘civility’ … cause your so darn funny and routinely leave us in stitches.

    Plus, I know most of the time you are light-hearted and good-natured, even in your criticism. Plus, more importantly, you can take whatever you dish out.

  17. 21 Alex Knepper
    So the proper solution is lock up the user? Give me a goddamned break!

    Yes, that is the proper solution. Drug users must be prosecuted. Prison sentences even for possession are the only way to stamp out drug epidemics.

    Drug dependence is not a disease. In the speech quoted below, Nils Bejerot says, “To combat drug epidemics by means of individual treatment is like attacking malaria by hunting mosquitos. It can occupy an enormous number of people, but the effect is negligible. What is required is drainage of the marshes.” Bejerot also says, “We have to accept the painful fact that we cannot win decisive advances unless drug abuse, the abuser and personal possession are placed in the centre of our strategy.”

    Professor Nils Bejerot: The Swedish addiction epidemic in a global perspective

    Sweden was the first country in Europe to be afflicted by drug abuse of epidemic type immediately after the end of the Second World War. The Swedish epidemic has been extremely extensive, it has spread to neighbouring countries and to the continent, and it has presented dramatic phases during its development. In addiction it is probably the drug epidemic which has been most closely studied and documented. Therefore Swedish experience is of considerable international interest.

    There are several different types of drug abuse, regardless of the nature of the drug. It is important to differentiate between these types of patterns of abuse, since they differ fundamentally in regard to prevention and control.

    Therapeutic Type

    First we have the classical medical use of dependence producing drugs which may give rise to abuse and addiction of therapeutic type. Those affected are usually middle aged , socially stable people who developed a drug abuse as a result of an error of medical treatment. These people are ashamed of their drug abuse, they try to keep it hidden, even from their physicians and relatives, and they rarely draw others into their abuse.

    Cultural Type

    The other main type of use and abuse is coupled to the culturally accepted consumption of certain inebriates – a consumption that often stretches back to the prehistoric times. It is no breach of norms within a culture to enjoy these drugs, but severe cases of dependence may arise, even though the use is ritual in accordance with ancient rules and traditions. This cultural form of abuse may be exemplified by the coca chewing of South American Indians, cannabis smoking in certain Muslim countries, opium smoking in the Far East and alcoholism in the Christian world.

    Epidemic Type

    The third main type of drug dependence is epidemic abuse. Characteristically is arises in bohemian circles where small groups of romantic dreamers or risk-taking norm breakers experiment with exotic or new intoxicating drugs in the pursuit of novel experiences. After years or decades of use of the drug in isolated groups, the first phase of the epidemic, there is a spread in the second phase to new categories, often to other groups of norm-breakers, and then particularly to criminal circles. In the third phase, drug consumption spreads to broad groups of the normal population, and then first to those which have the weakest impulse control and the least stable system of values, that is the youth. In the fourth phase the epidemic abuse tends to spread upwards through the age groups, and may begin to resemble drug use of cultural type. That is, it is no longer considered to be a breach of norms. A new, permanent drug problem has now been added to those already existing in the culture. Regardless of the country and the drug, these epidemics present a number of characteristics in common.

    Spread

    Spread of drug abuse occurs almost without exception through personal, psycho-social contact between an established abuser and a novice in very close friendship relation, often between sexual partners. Initiation usually occurs in an early phase of the initiator’s abuse, during the period which is commonly called the honeymoon of addiction, before the negative physical, psycological, social economic and legal complications have commenced. The honeymoon is short in the case of heroin, usually about a year, but far longer in cannabis abuse. Initiation via pushers and incidental contacts is rare. Pushers enter the scene at a later stage, when they play a very destructive role in maintaining an established abuse or provide for a relapse.

    Exponential Growth

    Epidemics of drug abuse often spread very rapidly. In most countries it has been possible to observe an exponential growth for long periods of time. For instance, intravenous abuse of amphetamine in Sweden doubled every thirtieth month during a period of twenty years, 1946-1965. In England the number of heroinists doubled every sixteenth month during a period of ten years, 1959-1968.

    Other characteristics for drug epidemics are their restriction by historic boundaries, and also, for long periods, within small coteries and by age, ethnic, geographical and national boundaries.

    Youth

    Drug epidemics are for long periods checked by such boundaries, but when these barries are broken through, the abuse spreads in the new population strata. For instance the Jews lived side by side with cannabis smoking Muslims in the Middle East for a thousand years without, as far as I know, any Jew smoking hashish. It was not until young American-Jewish cannabis smokers came to visit Israel that Jewish youth began to smoke the drug.

    Fashion

    Drug epidemics are extremely sensitive to fashion regarding the type of drug and method of administration, with sometimes rapid changes in the panorama of abuse. An example of this is cocaine, which, for a long period, was only consumed in the traditional way by chewing. With the production of pure cocaine, sniffing was introduced, later followed by intravenous injections, and finally by smoking the free base and coca paste.

    The more drug epidemics spread in a society the more common will be the occurence of mixed abuse with different drugs and varied mode of administration.

    Interaction

    Exposure and susceptibility interact in a predictable way. The fact that there was no one in Europe before the Second World War who injected drugs intravenously was due to the same simple reason that we had no syphilis or tobacco smoking before Columbus. Nor was there any tuberculosis or alcoholism among the Eskimos before they were colonized by the Danes. There had been susceptible individuals before, but they had not been exposed to these factors.

    Massivity

    The pressure of exposure, also called massivity, causes people to react differently: some are affected immediately, other after a time, some only after the pressure from the drug culture has become very great, while many manage to resist throughout their whole lives, despite prolonged and intensive exposure. Thus, susceptibility varies between different individuals, but also in the same individual with age and a number of other factors.

    We can now express the connection between exposure to drug culture (E), the susceptibility of the individual (S) and the risk that the individual will commence to use the drug, that is the psychosocial contagion (C):

    C = S x E

    The susceptibility of the individual (S) is the result of a large number of individual factors such as sex, age, social situation, previous experience, etc. Since exposure at one point also effects future susceptibility (fS) we can in general write the formula:

    C = fS x fE

    Of all norm breaking forms of drug abuse, intravenous administration is the one which is most suitable for scientific study, since the breach of norms here is distinct and important, and in addition injections leave clear, objective and characteristic diagnostic signs which cannot be confused with the medical injections (Bejerot 1975).

    The Swedish Epidemic of Intravenous Drug Abuse

    The Swedish epidemic started through a few coincidental events. Intravenous drug abuse had been reported in the USA since 1926, but as far as I know, this did not initiate any drug epidemics in Europe until a young, adventurous Swede in 1946 learnt the injection technique in USA, and introduced it into a little bohemian coterie in Stockholm. In this group a few persons had become amphetaminists through medical treatment for alcoholism, and in this limited group an epidemic of intravenous abuse was established.

    Up to 1949 there was a dozen cases within this bohemian coterie in Stockholm, but not a single case outside this group. In 1949 the epidemic spread out of this circle via a couple of artists models who were also prostitutes, and the epidemic thus gained a foothold in social problem groups. In the summer 1954 I diagnosed the first medically documented case of this type in Sweden.

    In 1956 the epidemic of intravenous abuse spread to Gothenburg, when an addict of this category moved there, and for the rest of his life was a central figure in addict circles in the second largest city in Sweden. The Swedish amphetamine epidemic spread to Finland in 1965, to Denmark in 1966, to Norway in 1967 and to Germany in 1972. In the study of intravenous abuse, I assumed that a breach of norms such as introducing a needle into a vein and injecting illicit drugs was so extreme that it would be expected to coexist with other severe breaches of norms such as traditional criminal conduct. I therefore initiated a study in 1965 where nurses inspected the veins of the arms of persons brought to the central arrest premises in Stockholm. From the study of representativity it is apparent that practically all active intravenous abusers are brought to the arrest premises sooner or later for one reason or another, and are included in the study.

    The study was commenced in 1965 because of an ultra-liberal policy introduced in Sweden that year, which permitted a number of physicians to prescribe amphetamine to addicts for self-administration. This resulted in an increase in the percentage of intravenous abusers in the arrest clientele from 20 to 40 percent during a period of three years! During an extra restrictive policy 1969-1970, a direct result of the catastrophic consequences of the prescribing policy, the epidemic was checked for the first time. The epidemic culminated in 1972, when some large drug syndicates were broken up. The system of distribution was reorganised quickly, however, since the demand was intact, and when heroin was introduced it gave rise to a new branch of the drug epidemic. It finally culminated in 1976 when 60 percent of all arrestees were intravenous abusers. Since then, a number of minor increases in the severity of drug legislation has reduced the percentage to about 40 percent in Stockholm, where the level has remained relatively constant. During the seventies the epidemic spread over the whole of Sweden, and cases of intravenous drug abuse now occur in rural areas.

    By means of enquiries as to the year of debut for intravenous abuse, we have reconstructed the incidence for Stockholm. Here the fatal effect of liberalization and prescribing of drugs 1965-1967 appears very clearly. Mortality among drug abusers has proved to have an excess of 7 to 15 times that of the normal population, and answers for a considerable depletion in the population of active drug addicts. In addition, various complications and the increasing difficulty in financing an expensive drug abuse about a third to discontinue their drug abuse spontaneously after an average of ten years. This means that all estimates of prevalence must be uncertain, unless a central register is drawn up over active intravenous abusers, and in the absence of new reports of abuse, they are removed after, for instance, five years.

    Control

    When we have understood how individual and social factors interact to give rise to drug epidemics, we can begin to discuss how we should attack the problem.

    Many studies have shown that the individual susceptibility factor is, unfortunately, not easily influenced, composed as it is of everything which has affected the individual up to the present. On the other hand, the exposure factor, pressure from the addiction milieu and the drug market, have proved to be highly modifiable by means of certain strategies.

    The rate of opiate addiction in USA was reduced by about 90 percent between the years 1923-1939 (Harney & Cross 1961), and this without any treatment to speak of, or research. The instrument was a strict drug policy which reduced the exposure factors dramatically.

    In the same way an extensive cocaine epidemic in Germany was stopped in the late twenties, and also a widespread amphetamine epidemic in Japan after the Second World War.

    Japan

    The Japanese epidemic deserves special attention. It arose when the Japanese military store of amphetamine went astray after capitulation. Abuse began among people who worked at night: jazz musicians, artists, bohemians and prostitutes, but it quickly spread broad strata of the population.
    The Japanese authorities introduced a number of countermeasures, but they did this too late and on too small scale, and with too little energy. It was like operating on a growing cancer which could not be checked since the measures taken were not sufficiently radical.

    The Japanese epidemic culminated in 1954, when it was estimated that two million of Japan’s population of one hundred millions was abusing amphetamine tablets, and over half a million were taking intravenous injections. It was only then that a dramatic increase in the stringency of policy was introduced, with prison sentences of 3-6 months for possession, 1-3 years for drug pushing and five years for illicit manufacture of drugs. There was close surveillance when they were released from prison, and there was an immediate reaction on relapse.

    During the first year of the campaign, 1954, 55 600 persons were arrested in Japan, for amphetamine offences, but in 1958 the number was only 271, and the whole epidemic was over. Altogether measures had been taken against 15 percent of the estimated number of intravenous abusers. The others stopped from pure fright when the restrictive policy was carried into effect. It should be pointed out that the campaign was drawn up on the basis of broad political unity, and was carried out with the aid of massive public support.

    Experience from China

    The Japanese had learnt from the Chinese technique of combatting drug epidemics. Between the years 1951-1953 China had stopped the 300 year old opium smoking with about 20 million active opium smokers, and this without needing to sentence more than ten percent of the addicts to a year or two in a labour camp, while ninety percent stopped without either medical treatment or psychotherapy.

    History as Teacher

    “We learn from history that we never learn from history” said George Bernard Shaw. This applies very much to drug epidemics and control over them.

    I have been unable to find any example of widespread drug abuse in any country, which has been overcome without a general restrictive program directed to the drug market and exposure from the addiction milieu, and this regardless of the level of development of the social system.
    Nor have I been able to find any example of a voluntary drug-free treatment program which has had more than a marginal effect on the extent of the problem.

    Basic Experience

    The period 1850-1950 was the age of prevention, when the mechanism of most of the known infectious diseases were revealed and the great epidemics overcome, not so much by individual treatment as by preventive measures. Even alcohol and drug-policy during this period were, in many countries, directed towards prevention. The advances made were often considerable, in Sweden they were epoch-making.

    The period after 1950 is the age of therapy. Now the preventive strategies and their social necessity have been forgotten, and we have instead an avalanche of different therapeutic schools and programs for the treatment of those already addicted. Most of these programs, unfortunately, have not given better results than no treatment at all.

    Not a Disease

    Why is this so? Firstly because drug dependence is not a disease, and therefore, by definition, cannot be cured. Caffeine and nicotine dependence, alcoholism and heroinism are not diseases, even if all these dependence-producing substances may make the individual very ill. The physical dependence, or tolerance, and the very distressing abstinence symptoms following withdrawal of many drugs, are only incidental complications, while true dependence is a learned behaviour where craving for the drug has taken on the character and force of a natural drive. Theoretically, drug dependence is related to such conditions as gambling, pyromania, and kleptomania. The drug acts as a reinforcer.

    Drug dependence is, thus, not a symptom of the factors which originally led to contact with the drug, consumption and dependence. Heavy nicotine dependence at forty is not a late symptom of curiosity in the early teens, but an independent condition which is very difficult to handle.

    A common factor in all types of drug dependence is an ambivalence of the addict towards his drug: He is anxious to obtain help for all the complications to his drug consumption, but he is not prepared to sacrifice the drug experience itself.

    To combat drug epidemics by means of individual treatment is like attacking malaria by hunting mosquitos. It can occupy an enormous number of people, but the effect is negligible. What is required is drainage of the marshes.

    The Large and The Small Drug Markets

    Draining the drug marshes means breaking up drug traffic and reducing general exposure to illicit drugs in society. Enormous efforts have been made by the customs, police and undercover agents all over the world. Despite this, the situation deteriorates very quickly and many countries are on the brink of giving up the fight.

    Why were the advances so great in the anti-drug campaign in Germany in the twenties, in USA. In the thirties, and in China and Japan in the fifties? And why have there been no decisive advances in the Western World during the last two decades? I consider that this is largely because we have forgotten what is primary and secondary importance on the drug market. The primary factor is not that Nature produces plants such as the opium poppy or coca bush or that international crime syndicates take over the distribution of the drugs. The primary factor is that millions of people are prepared to break norms and laws in order to use these natural inebriates and also hundreds of synthetic preparations.

    Breach of Norms

    It is thus the personal breach of norms which is the normal basis, and the personal possession of drugs the legal basis of the drug market, and not the international syndicates. These, in fact, are a late consequence of the emergence of a drug market.

    Naturally the drug syndicates should be combatted just as actively as now, but we must open a new front if we are to win the war. If we were to destroy all the cultivations of narcotics drugs in the world, there would, none the less, still exist substances which are up to 40 000 times as strong as morphine and which can be produced synthetically.

    We have to accept the painful fact that we cannot win decisive advances unless drug abuse, the abuser and personal possession are placed in the centre of our strategy.

    “The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product” said William S. Burroughs. I will quote another very astute remark from the foreword to his “Naked Lunch” from 1959;

    “If you wish to alter or annihilate a pyramid of numbers in a serial relation, you alter or remove the bottom number. If we wish to annihilate the junk pyramid, we must start with the bottom of the pyramid: The addict in the street, and stop tilting quixotically for the “higher ups” so called, all of whom are immediately replaceable. The addict in the street who must have junk to live is the one irreplaceable factor in the junk equation. When there are no more addicts to buy junk there will be no junk traffic, as long as junk need exists, someone will service it.”

    This is a brilliant summary of a difficult problem.

    Strategy and Tactics

    I consider that democratic, welfare states of western types ultimately stand and fall with the result of the fight against drug epidemics. To win that fight we must have realistic strategies and tactics. We must realize, and dare to affirm, that it is the drug addict who is the motor in the system. But the addict, who is extremely manipulative, and acts as the full time defence lawyer for his dependence, has succeeded in duping so many honest and responsible but naive politicians and journalists, that during the last twenty years he has himself been practically scheduled as a protected monument. This I consider is the most important factor behind our failure.

    They Must Be Prosecuted

    This does not mean that I propose a return to the harsh American sentences of the thirties for drug offences. They were unrealistic and undermined their own purpose. We must, however, make it very uncomfortable to abuse illicit drugs if we are to reverse developments. The addict must learn to take the consequences of his behaviour. In regard to Sweden, I have suggested a month clearing the forests for the first offence of possession of illicit drugs, two months for the second etc.
    Society must clearly show that drug abuse is not accepted. We cannot blame the behaviour of our youth on the mountain indians in Colombia or the peasants in the Golden Triangle. We must, in the first place, put the blame on our own youth, and this may be difficult and painful. In the second place we should put the blame on ourselves for being duped into an inconsquent, permissive, attitude with continual excuses and forgiveness.

    Popular Support

    No government in a democratic country can manage widespread drug epidemics without strong popular support. This must be achieved through broad political agreement and massive information which leads to something like a popular uprising against drug epidemics.

    The near future will be decisive as to whether the Western World will manage to overcome drug epidemics with a one-sided supply-orientated strategy we will fight a war which we are doomed to lose. Only by opening a new front with a strategy orientated towards demand can development be reversed, and the fight against drugs be won. Otherwise developments will progress towards capitulation and a social chaos which may be the basis for a new period of fascism.

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You hold History in your hands!

    By Professor Nils Bejerot, M.D.

    The Swedish Carnegie Institute, Stockholm
    Speech held 1988 in France, the Soviet Union and USA

  18. Think he’ll come back and respond, Mr V.?

    I hope so Denise, I hope so.

    I am not trying to put the gentleman ‘on the spot’ or anything like that, just wishing to see whether he is consistent with his (seemingly) iconoclastic beliefs against ‘faith-based’ authority, and collectivism.

  19. Landser – my dear fellow – I can be an absolute brat, at times – but I am so very pleased that my posts amuse you. I am delighted that you catch my *real” tone. A sense of humour is often in serious deficit, in the WN realm.

    Love and kisses!

  20. ““So, out of fairness then, you Mr. Knepper must obviously be against ‘Holocaust Denial’ laws that IMPRISON people for merely speaking an opinion?””

    I already answered like, 20 posts ago.

    Of course I’m against such laws.

  22. Mr. V – I know what you are about. Bless you. Refutation of the Great and Evil Holohoax is one of my chief obsessions.

    Your query is elegantly and beautifully phrased. I will check back to see if you, and we, get a reply.

  24. Landser – my dear fellow – I can be an absolute brat, at times – but I am so very pleased that my posts amuse you. I am delighted that you catch my *real” tone. A sense of humour is often in serious deficit, in the WN realm.

    Love and kisses!

    Absolutely Denise, in that I knew you were more motivated out of a sense of humor than a spirit of maliciousness.

    If I may so politely say, it’s best to reserve and use the ‘heavy’ stuff for the ‘heavy haulin’ — against the likes of ‘Red Jeffrey (the) Imp’, who was an insincere, malicious and spiteful fellow, compared to Alex Knepper, who is behaving like a decent and respectful man with us.

    At any rate, ‘love and kisses’ to you as well, dear Denise!

  25. MGLS – post # 67:

    Are you aware of the methodology deployed, by the Commuist Chinese, when ridding their Nation of the drug addiction scourge (More Works of the Jew. The “English” Jews used Victoria’s Crown as their cover, for their drug operation. Victoria was a totally mindless gluttonous twat. The Chinese still blame us, the White West, for the Heroin outrage)?

    The Chinese Commie authorities rounded up lots of drug addicts, put a gun to their temples, told them, very loudly, that they would either stop being drug addicts, or they would get their heads blown off. They had one chance. The first warning was *it”.

    The Commies then followed around select drug addicts, and waited til they got high, again, and then blasted their heads off. In public. The whole plan was to blow off the well-known junkie’s head, in a very public place.

    Worked like a charm.

    Most druggies are immature, childish, self-indulgent parasites. They use up everything their families and friends have to give, wreak all sorts of havoc, create all types of tedious boring drama, and don’t give one bloody dam about the mayhem they create.

    I actually admire the Commies for this one thing. No hand-wringing. No expensive, endless treatment centers. No relentless torment for the families.

    Very little public expense.

    Every-one got the message.

    Fast.

  26. Gee Alex – you’re up late.

    Sorry – we are very busy amusing each other. We love each other’s company.

    OK. Fine.

    That’s great that you are against such laws.

    Now – tell us what you think about the Hoax, Itself.

    Thanks!

  27. I already answered like, 20 posts ago.

    Of course I’m against such laws.

    Alex,

    Although I do not remember you specifically saying that you were against Holocaust Denial laws, I trust this is your position on this, and thank you for the response.

    –

    I ALREADY REPLIED, TWICE.

    Can you people READ?

    Alex, sometimes people are formulating and writing a response to something before they have a chance to see what else was recently posted.

  28. SSS – Post 64 – I know!

    Seriously. Fortune may have been the Last Great Homo. Perhaps Tommy Tune, or Richard Chamberlain may fit into a Decent Example of a Talented Homosexual category.

    We used to have Noel Coward. Cole Porter! My absolutely favorite Hollywood costume designer of all time – the Divine Adrian (who had a long-runnig affair with Elizabeth Taylor’s Daddy)!

    Now – we have Elton John, RuPaul, Harvey Fierstien [sic], and the guy that played Mr. Brady. Ewww….and all those ghastly dykes running around loose.

    Ewww…..

    You know civilization is in total collapse, when the homos are trite, pedestrian, and just plain tacky.

  29. Wait – Paolo Szot. He’s a Gay Man. He’s pretty circumspect, on his proclivities. Very elegant – and a stunning beauty (such a waste!)

    He’s wonderful .

  30. Your query is elegantly and beautifully phrased.

    Oh my, thank you so much Denise, for the beautifully phrased compliment.

    You are a very kind and thoughtful lady!

  31. C’mon Denise-

    Elton John?

    My favorite karaoke tune is “Yellow Brick Road..” I can often be spotted performing it in my garage. Everyone hates it, except of coarse my kids……

    “I should’ve stayed on the farm, I should’ve listened to my old man….”

  33. Elton John used to be a really wonderful performer……………but his example kinda proves my original point. He was a much better artist when he was closeted.

    Since he’s been allowed completely out of the closet – he gets worse and more horrible every year. He hasn’t written anything of value for years and years. I heard a story that his staff are always on the verge of strangling him. He apparently was vacationing in some Latin American, or somewhere, in some seaside villa, and he was complianing about the breeze blowing in his room. He wanted “something done” about the breeze. He wasnt’ kidding. He’s turning into such a peevish old nasty queen.

    Lena – if somehow, we all were able to watch you perform YBR – we would all cheer! We would love it!

  34. Mark – what the Hell are you talking about? I’ve written every word posted under my name on this thread.

  35. Speaking of weird music and songs, any of ya remember this bizzaringly foreboding, and ironically revealing, song, and who sung it? –

    Please allow me to introduce myself
    I’m a man of wealth and taste
    I’ve been around for a long long year stolen many man’s soul and faith
    I was around when Jesus Christ had His moment of doubt and pain
    Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed His fate
    Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game

    Stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change
    Killed the Tzar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain
    I rode a tank held a gen’rals rank when the blitzkrieg
    raged and the bodies stank
    Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
    Ah what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah

    I watched the glee while your kings and queens fought for
    ten decades for the Gods they made
    I shouted out “Who killed the Kennedy’s?” when after all
    it was you and me
    Let me please intruduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste
    And I lay traps for troubadors who get killed before they reach Bombay
    Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name. Oh yeah
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game. Oh yeah
    Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game

    Just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners, Saints
    as heads is tails, just call me Lucifer ’cause I’m in need
    of some restraint
    So if you meet me, have some courtesy have some sympathy
    and some taste
    Use all your well learned politesse or I’ll lay your soul to waste
    Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game

  36. Mark – when I was young, I was involved in Theater, for years. As a teenager, I did local things. As a young adult , I did stuff around Phildelphia and Washington DC. I’ve always been an Art Geek – music, ballet, theater, painting, scuplture, movies.

    Dont know know just how many of the males involved in these realms, are homosexuals? I used to have tons and tons and tons of gay friends. All of my contemporaries are dead, of AIDS, now, save one fellow. A straight male, in the Arts, in a genuine minority demographic.

    Knowledge of Who is Gay, is absolutely unavoidable, when dealing with the Arts.

    I

  37. Mark – what the Hell are you talking about? I’ve written every word posted under my name on this thread.

    Denise,

    I think he meant this more as a compliment than as a complaint/accusation to you.

  39. Oh – well – it’s the “sock puppet” thing.

    Gosh – it’s 2AM. It’s still 1AM “body time”. I hate Spring Forward.

    Night all!

    Landser – I do brew my own coffee.

  41. #82 “So which one of you is using Denise as a sock puppet? No way that’s a female.”

    Maybe it’s Greg Johnson.

  42. Alex Knepper, I don’t see you’ve really criticized anything beyond gasping about how people could possibly think this way. Maybe you don’t have much in the way of racial infeeling (and you’d hardly be alone these days), but I’d be willing to bet that it’s tremendously unlikely that you really have any close, enduring associations with people racially much distinct from yourself — or in other words, with anyone besides whites, whether or not you identify much with the term. Since that’s the case for at the very least a significant chunk of people in society, why is it a priori immoral to base society on those preferences? Why build a society in which people neither particularly like each other much nor particularly hate each other much, but just go about their lives navigating past dozens or hundreds of unlike people until they come across someone with whom they even feel like beginning to seriously associate with, but over the years ‘colliding’ — mating with the unlike — and canceling each others’ racial existence out, leaving nobody better off for it? If living around people racially alike is better, which it obviously is, though small numbers of others are often experienced positively (at least until one comprehends what the implications are), then why make it immoral to preserve such a way of life? One can allow that the rights of individuals emerge from examining first principles, but there are first principles besides those that also need to be examined.

  43. Alex,

    If you are opposed to Collectivism, does it follow that you are inherently opposed to the importation of Collectivists into relatively Individualist Countries like America?

    Because to say your against Collectivism while supporting the replacement of Individualists by Collectivists hardly makes any sense.

    Do you think California is a better place for Individualists thanks to all the Hyper-Collectivist Hispanics?

    Because if it is, it’s awful funny that Whites, the most Individualistic of Races in America today, are fleeing California in droves.

    Whereas just a few short decades ago, it was a Mecca for Individualists.

  44. AC – thanks. Wow. That’s probably one of the better compliments I’ve ever received in my life – but I don’t know if that is fair to Mr. Johnson. He may be horrified, as well. ; } !

  45. Donald, I regret insulting you a few days ago. Clearly you’re not what I called you; I take it back. It’s a sordid business, this racialism stuff, and it brings out the worst in people as often as it brings out the best. You don’t have to accept my apology, but I encourage you not to write off any idea I put forward just because it’s me doing it. Dumb ideas are what have got me in this predicament and that’s what my frustrations stems from; it’s nothing personal.

  46. Lansder,

    I agree with your assessment of the content of “Sympathy”. It’s like a “Brief Musical History of the Evil Wrought by The Jew”.

    I called [it] a great song, from a purely aesthetic standpoint. From a purely artistic perspective – it’s a tour de force. A true masterpiece. Every element of the recordng works flawlessly with every other element.

    The Rollng Stones were brilliant. Not my favorite English Invasion band (That honor goes to the Kinks. Ray Davies is my Ultimate Dream Date. Always will be) – but, at their best, they really were wildly gifted. FYI – Charlie Watts is one of my very favorite musicians, of all time. From all accounts, he’s also a very interesting, decent gentleman.

  47. “How about we let the market decide: remove all laws mandating integration, and allow for example taxis, restaurants and hotels to exclude blacks. If races really are equal, the market should eliminate racism because the ‘racist’ taxis, hotels, restaurants, etc will be forced out of business by the nonracist ones.”

    I completely support this.

    I’m expecting you to make a big point of this-along with making denunciations of AA, state-sponsored multiculturalism and Section 8 housing) at your next MSM appearance.

    Being Gay, you might be able to get way with it. The late David Brudnoy did. He also got way with regular interviews of Jared Taylor and Sam Francis.

  48. “Heath – if you really want to cite brutal Satanic wickedness – the genuine article – at least go for Crowley. ”

    Well I would quibble and say The Great Beast 666 was an Occultist and not a Satanist.

    Myself about the farthest I go into Occultism is Evolas stuff (and it is interesting to not that Evola and Guenon corresponded in letters about some of Crowleys activities…)

    When it comes to Satanism about the farthest I go is Venom and King Diamond, Laugh out loud. However there are some Satanic Racialists and I consider them allies in the struggle!

  49. denise, it sounds like you’ve taken a moderate stance on homosexuality as a result of having met some decent people who became your “gay friends”…not to be confused with “fags,” “homos,” “polevaulters,” “rugmunchers” or even “homosexuals.” Very respectful of you.

    But isn’t this the same experience that lots of people have with Jews? Just as with gays, there are lots of interesting individual eccentric Jews in the arts, no? Or did you just meet assholes?

  50. Silver, while we’re all amends, I’ll aslo express thanks for your civil response to me the other day in spite of what we’ve said before to each other. Your comments about the “irrationality” of “this racialism stuff” and how it brings out “the best and the worst in people” is interesting and shows that you look at things more reflectively than i previously thought.

    Also, “accidental dissent” is a genius title.

Comments are closed.