This was handled as follows by Antiwar:
Justin Raimondo at Antiwar gave as the title for his blog article: “Ron Paul’s Disgraceful Ad”
At Digg this was titled: “No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations’”? The person who posted to Digg then wrote as comment in the article description: “What happened to talking to people and trading with them?”
I try to avoid giving my own opinion in the description of the article when posting a Digg article. Although I admit this is sometimes difficult. Instead I try to represent the original and then give my spin in the comments or a blog article on it.
Ron Paul is right. The reaction of some in the antiwar movement to this ad casts doubt on why they are antiwar. Some are antiwar because they think the war is not in our interest. But some are against it because they hate America or have been taught to think hating America isn’t hating America.
Ron Paul is saying why fight them here when we can just stop them coming here. The ones calling Ron Paul racist are saying we have to let them come here to fight us here, whether we fight them there or not. If we are going to let them come here to fight them here, then we will also, inevitably, attack them there after they attack us here. That is what happened.
The ones who are antiwar and want to let them come here to attack us here are in fact neither antiwar nor for our soldiers dying, they are just anti-American. Or at least some are intentionally and others are without realizing it.
Being anti-racist is the good for the left. That means we die when they are racist is good. When we see the hate in their eyes, we are supposed to say we caused it. That is what the left trains us to think. That is why the left so easily buys into they attacked us here because we were in their lands in the first place. (If the left agrees with that, why do they have the right to be in our lands at all, now or on 9-11?) When we say they are the haters and they can’t come here, the left calls us bigot, racist, nativist, white nationalist, Nazi, white supremacist, etc.
Parts of the antiwar movement are showing its really a leftist anti-American movement in their minds. They are saying “we know” they are racist, white nationalist, Nazi, etc. about Americans. They look at each other and laugh, expressing their contentment in the knowledge that we are the racists.
They do think that the reason they came here to kill us was because we violated the Holy Lands of Islam by our presence, etc. The whole idea that we violate the Holy Lands of Islam by our presence is Islamic Supremacy, Arab racism and bigotry. The same attitude of Muslim supremacy is why they are attacking us here. 9-11 was the same Muslim supremacy that says infidels can’t be in the Muslim Holy Lands. They said they were Muslim supremacists as clearly as they could without using the words explicitly.
The Left embraces any racism and bigotry against us. This shows they are not anti-racism or anti-war. They want to see the Muslims come here and conquer and subjugate us. That is their goal. Its the same goal they had when Trotsky came to New York. Its the same goal they had when they shot President McKinley on September 14, 1901 in New York State.
Discussion Threads on this:
There is some discussion on this ad in the comments section at Vanishing American
LGF also dislikes Ron Paul and calls him a white nationalist or white supremacist or Nazi or at least get close to that.
(The following was revised to be a little less strong, and might benefit from more of such editing. Its a little inconsistent, retaining some of the flavor of the original post and some attempt to water that down.)
It is interesting to see Charles Johnson at LGF and Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com join together in this regard.
(The work and writing of both are interesting even when I disagree with them and I admire their persistence with distinct viewpoints even when I don’t join them. Raimondo often has good insights even if his overall conclusions are ones I disagree with.)
As a general criticism of the left, without attributing it specifically to any person we might make the following comments. There is a tendency for those indoctrinated in PC to turn on whites and attack them. Whatever the provocation, in moments of angst they fight their real enemy. That would be us, the white nationalist, Nazi, white supremacist folk who actually live in America, Australia Canada, and Europe.
Antiwar is supposed to care about our troops as people. Stopping students coming here would make Americans safer. We need to think about that first.
LGF is supposed to care about saving us from the terrorists. But when we mention that Europeans are white, they turn on us with hatred. For them a white Europe is racism, Nazism, white nationalism and white supremacism. The same applies to a white America.
(The they in the following is not, now, intended to refer to a specific person’s views, but instead the tendency of PC or those under its spell, whether momentary or longer lasting.)
In the end, they both hate us for the color of our skin. They’ve been taught to. They’ve been taught that not hating whites is racism. This is why they both hate Ron Paul, he doesn’t sign on to the hate and eliminate whites agenda of the left.
(The impact of PC is powerful. It has the ability to overthrow even good minds. While we may disagree with those acting under the spell of PC we should try to preserve some tolerance for them. Hate the PC, love the sinner.)
The above is draft and preliminary. It is subject to substantial revision. Comments and corrections are welcome. All other disclaimers apply.
Repetition from previous posts:
==Wright Island Model Sustained Immigration is genetic replacement immigration.
“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”
Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.
The Island Model with Stochastic Migration
Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
As pointed out in a previous post:
The theorem doesn’t say you get a mixture of old and new. The theorem says you get complete replacement of the old by the new. The old goes extinct. This is pure genetic replacement. It doesn’t matter if there is an intermediate mixture or not. Over time, the initial stock is replaced completely. Promises of a mixture are false.