Attack of a mean-faced, clipped haired woman against Southern gentleman

Watch this interview

Rachel Maddow goes into maximum liberal self righteousness attack mode. This is their Maginot line.

Rand Paul doesn’t bat an eyelash.

My analysis is that Rand Paul has an excellent command of libertarian philosophy, and he dismisses Maddow’s obsession about segregated lunch counters as a “red herring,” and always reframes it back to his libertarian view. It’s brilliant, and amazingly courageous. He got attacked by the friggin’ TV itself, for heaven’s sake! It wasn’t just Maddow It’s never just about the individual TV personality. The power for whom she is a spokesperson prepared her long and hard for this.

I find Rachel Maddow extremely displeasing on the eyes and ears. She definitely believes in putting the world, or at least the West, under a politically correct gulag.

The thing about liberals, is they certainly can do some damage, but in the long term, they are incompetent. A Stalin will come along, as he did in 1924, perhaps he’s waiting in the wings of the “eyes wide shut” world. We live under an oligarchy, as Senator Bernie Sanders (yes a Jew) from Vermont, said. It’s just about a big pot of money, and it’s going to end up like a Quentin Tarantino movie, when the criminals all start betraying each other and killing each other.


  1. Boychiks: Ron Paul has changed since 1963 is what I’d say. It doesn’t mean I’m a fan of his “restore the Constitution” because I can see it is not doable until and unless you openly acknowledge the founding peoples of America as such. He thinks you can get in through the back door, that all of those Paulites will somehow stage a revolution. After all, his campaign is called Campaign for Liberty and when you have freedom of association in all its aspects, what else do you need.

    I was not too surprised about Rand’s approval of the Civil Rights Act; he thinks he has to say this or All Is Lost, ie, he won’t become Senator. He doesn’t realize he is living in a fool’s paradise to think that one senator can overturn everything. On the other hand, politicians like the Pauls think that all they have to do is get elected and then they can openly express their true selves. The old man has more gumption than the son.

  2. The thing that particularly disgusts me about the Maddow interview is her sanctimonious drivel about the people who were “beaten” in order to desegregate lunch counters.

    Maddow shamelessly ignores the enormous piles of beaten, raped and murdered whites that have grown in integration’s wake. At four decades and counting, the butcher’s bill paid by white innocents has been enormous.

    But to Maddow, huge numbers of murdered whites don’t even rate the raising of an eyebrow. They don’t matter at all. You, dear reader, could literally be tortured and slaughtered by a gang of blacks tomorrow, but you should expect no tears from Maddow. She wouldn’t care a whit. But if you are a black and took a knuckle sandwich from a white guy? She would be pulling her hair and gnashing her teeth.

    She would much prefer to overlook four decades of slaughter and rapine in order to highlight her precious black victims. She’s like the psychopath who is completely unfazed by a field of slaughtered innocents, but breaks down into tears at the sight of a black who got a knuckle sandwich. What a sense of proportion!

    The fact that Rand Paul let her get away with this is disgusting. But then, he is what he is – a “Paul.” A “Paul” is something in which many invest high hopes, only to be inevitably disappointed.

    The lesson here is clear: any who ignore the piles of slaughtered and raped whites, in favor of some mythical blacks “beaten” in their heroic attempts to integrate a friggin lunch counter, reveal their evil and sinister nature. They pose as defenders of life and justice. It is just a pose, for they are nothing of the sort.

  3. He chickened out, the lickspittle. How many of us would like nothing more than a chance to argue our case with these Reds, out before the MSM cameras and microphones, where they could not hide? Instead, we post back and forth for an audience of a few thousands, maybe? The Paul boy had the opportunity of a lifetime, and ran away. Does he not have the intelligence and knowledge to argue his case? Did he fear being bested by brain-dead leftists who shun all honest debate? Look at how hollow the criticism of him is, it all comes down to one word, “racist”. He had a chance to deflate that word, and wet his pants instead.

  4. Womyn like Mad-Dowg have so much going against them already (nature, genes, upbringing, etcccc.) – that it would not behoove a gentleman to make any further comment—————————————-except Bring me the Pepto-Bismol!

  5. Blacks indeed won the right to desegregate lunch counters, but at what cost to them?

    Before desegregation, blacks owned their own restaurants, hotels, clothing stores, auto repair shops, grocierie stores, etc.

    Once desegregation became law, blacks abandoned their own in favor of patronizing white owned businesses. Ghee, I wonder why?


    Hey soren, nice avatar. Maybe you should have it tattooed in the middle of your forehead; you’d be a dead ringer for Charlie Manson. Afterall, he IS your hero, right? LOL

  6. Well, Rand Paul is perfectly positioned to “learn about the Civil Rights movement”, stage a photo op at an inner city Louisville soup kitchen, stage a photo op at a rural Kentucky food shelter, and start a discussion about White Civil Rights. Someone is going to benefit from getting 100 million White people to acknowledge that they are legally discriminated against in the workplace, in college admissions, and in the courts. And so will we all.

  7. Discard: “He chickened out, the lickspittle.”

    He sure did. From the libertarian point of view, is there anything more fundamental than freedom of association? Is that not a core principle, if libertarianism means anything at all? So what did Paul do? Throw it under the bus in a heartbeat. Amazing, even for a lickspittle libertarian. What we are seeing is libertarianism as, not a powerhouse of liberty, but merely a controlled movement. Libertarianism is not free to preach its core tenets, but merely to push that part of its agenda that suits the system: promoting the freedom to behave badly and immorally in our personal lives, and promoting corporate control and pillage in the name of laissez-faire. Thanks libertarians!

    I’ve argued on this site before with certain libertarian leaning types who say that, at least under libertarianism, we’d be able to carve out our own institutions. To which I have always replied, in essence: bullshit. You can’t have libertarianism for whites in a society with enormous non-white hordes and a Jewish elite. They are actively hostile toward white liberty. They don’t want whites to have freedom of association, freedom of speech, or any other meaningful freedom. Rather, they are interested in controlling whites, discriminating against whites, covering up the enormous amounts of crime and violence directed at whites, and getting their hands on white taxpayer money. Ultimately they are interested in genociding whitey, and love to hear about whites becoming a minority and ultimately being bred out of existence.

    That’s it, that’s the deal. It’s not complicated. Libertarianism is impossible under such circumstances. How quickly Rand caved, despite having the facts and the truth on his side, is just one small example of this reality. As a former libertarian myself, I have considerable experience with the libertarian mindset. It cannot get us where we need to go, not by a long shot. I donated a significant sum to Ron Paul before he caved in 2008, so I was ready this time around. Never again will a Paul get a red cent from me. I will only view them in coldly pragmatic terms: do they increase polarization or not? For now they do, so I hope continued success, but I’ve definitely lost that loving feeling. lol

  8. Does anyone ever think that these politicians say these things to let us white nationalists know which side of the fence they really sit on? Then they backtrack and grovel so that the enemy is misled into thinking they’re weak when they’re really waiting for the right moment to come all out.

    Didn’t someone on OD post that they had a conversation with a politician who, it turned out, was a closet WN. The politician said “I’m waiting for the right time.” Maybe there are quite a few of them.

    Hey, I can dream can’t I?

  9. But then, he is what he is – a “Paul.” A “Paul” is something in which many invest high hopes, only to be inevitably disappointed.

    Never a truer statement made. It is amazing to me that people still look to the Pauls for leadership after what they did in 2008. Where did all that money go btw?

  10. “”Didn’t someone on OD post that they had a conversation with a politician who, it turned out, was a closet WN. The politician said “I’m waiting for the right time.” Maybe there are quite a few of them.””

    The time is right…LOL… is that when 10, 20, 30 million more invaders come across? Or maybe as the massive demographic baby boom continues unabated. How about maybe when we elect more anti white SCJ’s? Or maybe…

    Patrick Henry said it best:

    Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

  11. TabuLa Raza, thanks for the link. Good article. I particularly liked the following two paragraphs, which are spot on:

    Perhaps, then, P.C. libertarianism is a perfectly understandable psychological phenomenon. It allows a man to feel good about being a rebellious champion of freedom while safely conforming to society’s enforced dogmas. One is thus free to be an intellectual coward, or a complete non-thinker, and still enjoy self-esteem and brilliant repute as a fearless intellectual.

    From the perspective of our rulers, such P.C. libertarians are perfectly harmless and can be left alone. They can even be allowed to flourish, as a false opposition. Today’s P.C. libertarians may be nothing like the principled 200-proof libertarian truth-seekers of old. However, adherence to a belief system that is logically incoherent but psychologically comforting is probably all that we can expect of them, as Western civilization sloughs ever deeper into the garbage dump of history.

  12. Millirone: “Where did all that money go btw?”

    Good question. Wherever it went, it took some of my fiat money with it. To twist The Who – won’t get pauled again.

  13. The reason why leftist lez Maddow goes into hysterics when Rand Paul suggests people be GIVEN BACK their right of free association–taken away by the ironically-named Civil Rights laws–is because such an act would destroy the entire leftist, Jewish, parasitic AmeriKwan system overnight. Maddow panics momentarily, until she realizes she’s successfully bullied Rand Paul back onto the ideological reservation of “free association for Whites = mountains of dead Jews and black people.” Maddow is using a variant of the old “White people can’t be left alone ’cause they’d kill off all the Jews” canard.

    This is an INCREDIBLY important moment. Maddow knows free association is a direct and lethal threat to the entire Marxist wealth-transfer scheme of endless Jewish meddling in the lives and bank accounts of white people. Rand Paul wants Whites to be free to self-segregate because it would solve 95% of their multi-cult problems instantly. Rand Paul can’t be honest about his sympathies, however, because he wants a political career in real life and not just on the Internet.

    Lez Maddow reacts to free association like a Jew to holy water. She freaks out for a moment–then her testosterone levels rev back into overdrive and she successfully stares Rand Paul down until he blinks. She’s the dominant ape. (Don’t believe me? Watch the clip again.) The axiom that “black people’s feelings > the right of Whites to exist/self-segregate” is reaffirmed for the audience. Remember, this is just a variant of the axiom that “Jewish people’s power, privilege, and feelings > the right of Whites to self-govern.”

    Anyway, free association is the key. Establish the right of free association (plus decentralization of government) and Whites are free from 95% of what ails them. White neighborhoods, schools, and businesses would coalesce overnight into “Leave It To Beaver”-style enclaves of functionality in the midst of general ‘Kwan squalor. Such a scenario would utterly invalidate the leftist universe of racial equality and wealth redistribution. Consequently, Jews, darkies, tax parasites, Big Government careerists, and Maddow-style pervs and weirdoes will do EVERYTHING possible to attack the fundamental Western/Classical Liberal right of free association.

    Plus, in the generally scummy and sleazy environment created by leftism, feminism, multiculturalism etc., Maddow has far more opportunities to gorge on clams and tuna without being noticed or frowned at by the public. Zing!

  14. Joanne: “Didn’t someone on OD post that they had a conversation with a politician who, it turned out, was a closet WN. The politician said “I’m waiting for the right time.” Maybe there are quite a few of them. Hey, I can dream can’t I?”

    Yep, nothing wrong with that. There are almost certainly well placed whites who are somewhat sympathetic to our cause, and will help “if the time is right.” But the point is, they won’t help UNTIL the time is right.

    What makes the time right? Well, partly events that are beyond our control. The good news is that a near perfect storm appears to be brewing, but we’ll have to see. I give it a ten to fifteen year window max. If circumstances aren’t in our favor by that point, well, I don’t think we can wait any longer. But that’s another story.

    The other thing that is necessary to make the time right is, of course, us. We need to spread our message as far and wide as possible, gain more adherents, and build what infrastructure we can under difficult circumstances. Why should well placed people throw their careers away for a movement that is clearly not serious about winning? I can’t fault that reaction. On the other hand, as I said in an earlier post, a serious and growing movement will get good breaks and assistance from unexpected quarters. That’s just how momentum works, nothing succeeds like success. When a movement has real momentum, all of a sudden people are willing to work for it, take risks for it, sacrifice for it. Until then, nobody wants to go first. If people sacrifice, they want to be seen as heroes and martyrs, not chumps and kooks.

    So as to the sleepers out there, I hope there are plenty of them. I’m confident there are at least a fair amount. I don’t condemn them, but they aren’t going to help us until we help ourselves.

    That said, I can and do blame a libertarian for refusing to defend freedom of association. It’s sort of like a guy who claims to be pro Second Amendment, but agrees that all guns should be banned. It’s untenable. I have seen no indication that Rand Paul is on our side in any meaningful sense. I still hope he does well, but for other pragmatic reasons, not out of any confidence that he is pro-white. If he turns out to be pro-white down the road, I’ll be pleasantly surprised. But his failure to defend something that was well within his ability, and well within the requirements of his libertarian philosophy, is quite telling. With friends like that…

  15. “Maddow is cleary trying to create a poltical atmosphere where White American Males will be exterminated by the state…it is so obvious that she is doing this..”

    More females would be like that, probably, if they were like Maddow in the sense of not liking penile-vaginal intercourse.

  16. Kreese, good post. A Jew reacts to white freedom of association like a demon to holy water. But the politcally correct libertarians still miss the point: we aren’t going to get freedom of association in a nation full of non-white hordes and a Jewish overclass. Our present system simply cannot and will not allow white freedom of association, no ifs, ands or buts. The entire basis of the system rests upon control of whites.

    The solution, therefore, is a new system that is not hostile to whites. Politically correct libertarians, however, don’t want to face this reality. They want to pretend that we can have Jewish overlords and hordes of non-whites, but somehow freedom of association can be magically restored in full, because it’s the “answer.”

    But it’s not the answer, because it is impossible to achieve it without addressing more fundamental problems first – like an incredibly hostile system supported by over a hundred million non-whites. There is a glimmer of hope for libertarians, though, and that is their support for secession. Without being politically incorrect, that is the one way in which they could help us break the back of the current system. Beyond that, I see precious little value in what they offer, my general fondness for liberty notwithstanding.

  17. Never mind Rand Paul; a flash-in-the-libertarian-pan, same as Dad. Bulldyke-Communist Jewess R. Sarah Maddow is the real thing: every time she is seen and opens her mouth, another 1,000 anti-Heebs are created. She is a great polarizer.

  18. Thanks for the props, Trainspotter. You do fine work, like so many of the regular contributors to the pro-White sites. I don’t know where you guys find the time or patience, but I’m very thankful you do.

    As far as free association being impossible except in the aftermath of a major political upheaval, I’m in full agreement with you. Our entire liberal system is based on the premise that Jews and non-whites have an inviolable right to force themselves on white people. (Yeah, “force themselves on white people” is a particularly appropriate double entendre.) The liberal mythos that “justifies” the inviolable right of non-whites to force themselves on white people is the axiom that free Whites will enslave and/or mass-murder Jews and non-whites in all cases. Therefore, Whites must be subordinated within the context of multicultural socialism wherever they are found in the multiverse. Maddow makes this “argument” in the video: “If Whites have free association, they’ll beat up black people at Woolworth’s”–or something.

    But the crux is this: There will be NO freedom of association until Whites solve the TECHNICAL PROBLEM (hat tip Alex Linder) of creating a power configuration (i.e. people and money) that rivals or exceeds the Jewish-female-minority-homosexual configuration.

  19. Perhaps, then, P.C. libertarianism is a perfectly understandable psychological phenomenon. It allows a man to feel good about being a rebellious champion of freedom while safely conforming to society’s enforced dogmas. One is thus free to be an intellectual coward, or a complete non-thinker, and still enjoy self-esteem and brilliant repute as a fearless intellectual.

    I didn’t follow the link, but came to a similar conclusion after stirring up a nest of libertards and discovering what a bunch of cretins the were. Their “pure” libertardianism seemed like nothing so much as an excuse for never getting anywhere, a license to bitch and moan and do nothing.

  20. But the politcally correct libertarians still miss the point: we aren’t going to get freedom of association in a nation full of non-white hordes and a Jewish overclass. Our present system simply cannot and will not allow white freedom of association, no ifs, ands or buts. The entire basis of the system rests upon control of whites.

    Which is what I call the mother of all wedge issues.

  21. #18: If you provoke an armored onslaught, you need to be trained for it. You don’t stand clueless and try to improvise.

    In real combat, you fall back in echelons with your frontal force, while you have a line of your own armor or AT-forces on a perpendicular line and take out the flank and base of the enemy breakthrough… I’m not sure what that would correspond to in this analogy, but it seems clear that mr Paul must be a lousy chess-player, if he can’t think even three moves ahead…

  22. Rand Paul is a traitor to the USA and an agent for Israel.

    In his own words:
    The United States Special Relationship with Israel
    By Dr. Rand Paul
    Candidate, United States Senate
    Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.
    The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel.
    I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.
    The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex. The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.

    Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations. Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.
    As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.
    Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.
    It is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass judgment or to use our power or relationship to force Israel to go against her own interest for the sake of “peace.”

    … In the Senate, I would strive to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten Israel.
    Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.
    Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.
    Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.
    …we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. …

    The man is a traitor. His father OUGHT to be ashamed of him, if his father is sincere. But I fear that Ron Paul might be a traitor as well, if he raised his son to betray the USA.

  23. Crypto Aryan, what are you saying here? QUOTE:

    “Jared Taylor would, and would be quite eloquent about it, but he’ll be sitting home tonight with nothing to do, waiting in vain for tv producer to call him. He’s just too toxic for them. His friendship with people like Don Black and Paul Fromm is sure paying off big time, isn’t it?

    Somebody please explain again how associating with extremists and pursuing the “Overton Window” is supposed to broaden the scope of acceptable ideas when it comes to racial/ethnic politics? Radicals ideas will not become mainstream as long as mainstream politicians and ordinary people are terrified of being associated with the people pushing the ideas.”

    Don’t take their point of view on this. Don Black and Paul Fromm are not “extremists” at all. Remember that sticking up for white people period is “extremism” to them. In reality it is perfectly and universally moral and right. It is mainstream for US. We need to all stick together. Work together. Once the people start coming our way and realize they CAN en-masse, then our problem is solved overnight. We will have the eyes and ears of our people and THEY will look ridiculous with anything they say! This can happen overnight. Under the surface mask forced on us by alien political-correctness, we are ready for this. Again, this can happen overnight. We need to present solidarity, not divisiveness. This will make it safe for people to voice their views.

  24. Anyone of us here could have smaked down this nasty she-male birth defect down. Basically, what you gotta do is read he-her-it the riot. So a proper response would go something like this:NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS are under no obligation to commit racial suicide within the borders of America because you demand it. Over time, Many more NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS will want to implement policies that protect their legitmate racial interests such as 0 nonwhite immigration and free association. You don’t have an argument. You are trying to intimidate NATIVE BORN WHITE BORNS into accepting policies that have resulted in White Americans being assaulted murdered and raped by blacks and being race-replaced by post-1965 nonwhites. There is nothing you can do to stop NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS from acting on their legitimate racial interests. You, Rachel Maddow are a racist.

    The response has to be as direct and forcefull as this. This is exactly how Jared Taylor must respond during an interview with someone such as the she-male Rachel Maddow who clearly harbors intense hatred to conservative WHITE AMERICANS. There is no other way to do it.

    This is how you respond to her statement about the consequences of free association and Whites. WE really don’t care what her or blacks opinions are about free association. Maddow will no doubt loudly denounce ypu as a racist for saying this. But the following simple response will blow up her vicious propaganda war against White Americans:Now youcan you tell White Americans why they should be in favor of the policies that you advocate,policies that are clearly harmfull to the racial interests of White Americans. Maddow will no doubt respond along the lines that What Americans have no legitmate racial interests…WE will respond:so you can’t give any reason at all why White Americans should accept these obviously harmfull policies that you advocate..well then you shouldn’t be shocked that White oppostion to these policies wil grow exponentiall with each passing year….you clearly have violent intetnins towards White Americans…White Americans would have to be suicidal to put their fate in your hands, the hands of blacks and post-1965 nonwhites…you Rachel Maddow are a racist…

    This how you gotta fight back folks..I hope you are paying attention to todays lesson..memorize it…emblazen it on your frontal lobes

  25. Jupiter,

    I couldn’t agree more. There’s no way to deal with a Maddow than attack attack attack.

    We should call her Rachel Madoff. It’s the same name, the spelling got changed at Ellis Island.

  26. I love this place; I just found out what an Overton Window is.
    My education continues!
    I’m such a tool; ignore me.

  27. Rand Paul needs to be smarter than that.

    The Left from Marx to Obama always hide their real agenda.

    He should have done the same.

  28. What’s wrong with some of you? I have never heard a mainstream politician from my generation talking about freedom of association before and I’m absolutely jubilant about it and so should anyone else who claims to be a White Nationalist. If your going to attack the Pauls provide some sources for your accusations. One favorite accusation is that they want to flood America with orientals. The only thing I’ve ever found on the subject was Ron Paul supporting some legislation for skilled visa applicants about 10 years ago. This doesn’t necessarily mean Asians, he could have been trying to boost European immigration. Go ahead and admit it. You dislike Ron Paul and his son because they’re anti-Jew.

Comments are closed.