Post New Thread Reply
 
Thread Tools Share
Old 01-11-2014, 02:09 PM   #1
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default The Truth about the SPLC

For the record, I am a White Rights Activist, not a supremacist or Nazi of any kind. The SPLC has targeted me because I advocate against their anti-White agenda. The SPLC is a jewish hate group and Whites are what they hate the most.


How the SPLC Lies About Our Movement and Leaders


The latest Duke Report exposes a SPLC attack on the European American Unity and Leadership Conference in New Orleans. The SPLC completely distorted the essence of the New Orleans Protocol and purposefully misleads its readers on the purposes and motivations of our Cause.

Read Both Sides and Expose the Real Lies!

My two main opponents are two Jewish supremacists: Abraham Foxman of the ADL (the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and Mark Potok head of media for the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).

Hardly a day passes without some sort of an attack on me from one of these two men or their organizations.

Thank goodness for the Internet. When presented with such attacks you now have the ability to easily and quickly get both sides of every controversy. Ideas and facts can be presented without censorship and people can decide for themselves which point of view makes more sense. That’s why Foxman and Potok are trying to filter and control free speech on the Internet.

They even seek laws to completely suppress free speech on these issues. They are afraid of open debate. I would argue that only those who know that they have a weak case are really afraid of free speech. If your case is strong you will want public debate and attention on issues that you believe are important.

If you tell lies you don’t want to face cross-examination. You don’t want your victim to tell his side of the story. The liar needs to suppress facts and distort information.

Of course, the ADL and SPLC say that I am the liar. The only way for you to find out who is really lying is to read both sides, think for yourself and judge for yourself.

Thankfully, it is very easy to expose the real liars in the controversy between these Jewish supremacist-led groups and me. It’s in black and white as plain as the letters on the page you are reading from. They portray me as advocating certain nefarious things. However, you can read for yourself in the millions of words I have written and see what I really do advocate. And you can clearly see that what I write and say is very different from what they say that I say. You can also learn quite quickly if what I have written was done in a spirit of hatred or done conscientiously.

It is true that I have often expressed anger over what I see as injustice. People who are passionate about their beliefs naturally do that, but I know that I don’t advocate or express hatred. I have a respect for all peoples and their heritages — including my own. Of course, that’s my problem. The fact that I am a non-Jewish European American who dares to defend the rights and heritage of my own people is an unpardonable sin in the new orthodoxy. And the same thing is true for all peoples who defend themselves from Jewish supremacism, such as the Palestinians. The ironic thing is that at least I am consistent while they are hypocrites. I accept the fact that every group has the elemental right to endeavor to preserve itself and defend its rights. My opponents, however, defend and advance the interests of their own heritage while condemning me for defending my own.

But you see thanks to the Internet and what is left of Free Speech, it’s very easy to expose their hypocrisy. It just takes a little reading and a little thinking. Let me give you some examples.

The ADL and the SPLC condemn European American organizations that want to secure our borders from massive non-European immigration.

But they do not condemn any of the extremely powerful American Jewish organizations that support Israel’s policy of preserving Israel as a Jewish state dedicated exclusively to the Jewish people! A state that has the strictest policies that limit immigration to Israel almost wholly to those of Jewish descent and even deny Palestinians the right to return to the home of their birth!

The ADL and SPLC condemn European American organizations that oppose religious or racial intermarriage.

But they do not condemn any of the powerful Jewish organizations that diligently work against intermarriage of the Jewish people. In fact, in Israel intermarriage of a Jew and non-Jew is not legal! Yet these same organizations vigorously condemn the old anti-intermarriage laws in America!

The ADL and SPLC condemn any European Americans activists and label as “supremacists??? those of us who simply want to preserve our heritage.

But there is no condemnation of Jewish supremacists and Jewish supremacist publications such as Jewish Week (the largest Jewish publication in the United States) which features columns that blatantly proclaim the superiority of Jews over Gentiles and sometimes even claims that all Gentiles are inherently evil.

The ADL and SPLC condemn as “racists??? and “supremacists??? any European American who simply wants an end to the extensive racial discrimination called “affirmative action.???

But there is no condemnation by these Jewish supremacists of massive, institutionalized racial discrimination against European Americans in scholarships, college admission, jobs, promotions, and contracting. There is no huge outcry over the pervasive discrimination against Whites.

The ADL and SPLC condemn as racist any European Americans who prefer to live and go to school among our own people. They have vigorously condemned all nations who have had such policies, such as former Apartheid South Africa.

But these groups do not condemn Israel which is almost completely segregated in settlements, schools, and housing. There is not a peep of condemnation against the American government for sending huge amounts of our tax money to support the Jewish Apartheid State. On the contrary, the ADL is openly dedicated to defending and supporting the Apartheid State of Israel.

So what is the explanation for these obvious hypocrisies?

I would think a logical, self-explanatory reason for these hypocrisies is that these organizations are themselves led and influenced by self-serving Jewish supremacists who have completely hypocritical policies for European Americans and for Jews. They see the weakening of the European American as strengthening of their own people. And indeed, as we have grown weaker and become more susceptible to Jewish media power and government influence, they have grown much stronger. That awesome power even led us blindly into this Zionist-orchestrated Iraq War and all its terrible consequences for America over the next few years.

Let me show you some specific lies and omissions told by the SPLC in their recent letter, publication and Internet site. I am not afraid to let you read those attacks on me. And I encourage you to go to their website at www.splc.com and read everything they have to say about me! All I ask is that you read my side too! Here are some excerpts from those sources: (I draw these excerpts from the recent SPLC letter and newspaper sent to their contributors)

Quote:

New Orleans – Over the Memorial Day weekend, leaders of major hate groups from three countries gathered here and established a dangerous new alliance. Overlooked by the mainstream media, they signed on to a historic plan to work in concert to more effectively infect society with their neo-Nazi, white supremacist beliefs.

The agreement to band together in promoting their hate agenda was reached at an assembly of more than 300 white supremacists. They came together on May 29 to celebrate the recent return of David Duke, one of the most notorious leaders of America’s hate movement, who was released from federal prison last month after serving time for fraud.

“The New Orleans Protocol,??? written by Duke, is a pledge by groups to work together to support the hate movement. It requires groups to aim their hate at their real targets, not at each other, and to advance in unity their vision: a nation for white people.

Duke, always a master at mainstreaming hate, has an alarmingly simple premise: To be more effective at infecting our society with hate, fear, and racism, Duke and his neo-Nazi, white supremacist friends have to do two things.

First, they have to aim their hate and resentment at their real targets and not at one another. And, second, they have to disguise their intentions as they infiltrate the fabric of our society.

Here are just a couple of Duke’s “win them over with kindness??? strategies. He’s advising his hate-filled followers to volunteer as little league coaches where they can gain access to impressionable children. And he suggests they join organizations like the Red Cross to gain legitimacy for their sickening ideas.

Duke’s sudden re-emergence on the white supremacist scene is a troubling development. That’s why I’m writing you today – to enlist your support in an effort to expose and counter Duke’s new scheme.

During the meeting, Duke singled out Jews as the source of the world’s problems. While there was also much hostility toward minorities, most of conference participants’ ire was directed at what they consider to be a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race through immigration and miscegenation.

Duke’s Jewish Supremacism, an excerpt of his autobiography My Awakening, reportedly has sold more than 580,000 copies worldwide and is about to be translated into Arabic. It is also available on his website.

Duke has successful record

Duke has a surprisingly successful tract (sic) record, and his influence should not be underestimated. In 1989, he won a seat in the Louisiana legislature. Duke has a unique ability among neo-Nazi leaders to galvanize people. He once won a seat in the Louisiana state legislature. He later ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Although he lost, he won more than 600,000 votes – almost 60% of the white vote. (and over 1,000,000 in the governors race— ed.)

In the early 1990s, the annual Dukefests – offering free barbecue and music for Duke supporters – drew more than 10,000 people each year.

Duke camouflaged his racism and won votes from disenchanted whites who would have been repelled by Nazi or Klan regalia, but who failed to recognize Duke’s disguised extremism.

Recently, Duke played a pivotal role in the gubernatorial election in Louisiana. His operatives called 100,000 of his supporters and asked them not to vote for Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American candidate. Jindal was defeated.

At the New Orleans meeting, Duke called on hate group leaders to put aside their differences and to adopt his tactics.

Among those signing the Protocol at the meeting were:

Duke, former Klansman and now leader of European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO);

Don Black, a former Klan leader and the creator of Stormfront, the Internet’s first and most influential hate website;

Willis Carto, a primary architect of the Holocaust denial movement in this country;

Kevin Strom and David Pringle of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the organization whose founder inspired the Oklahoma City bombing;

Paul Fromm, head of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, a vehemently anti-immigrant organization;

Attorney Sam G. Dickson of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CoCC), and;

John Tyndall, founder of the racist British National Party.

Two of Duke’s political campaign managers gave the audience a long list of how-to tips for those entering electoral politics. Advice included such details as how to run phone banks and how to talk to voters.

One of the signers of The Protocol said “The New Orleans Protocol will have historic significance as we advance toward our vision: a nation for White people, where the government is responsible to us alone, where our interests – and not the interests of a foreign nation like Israel – come first.???

There are many inaccuracies, omissions and distortions in these excerpts.

Notice first how the word “hate??? is used 12 times and Nazi 6 times! These Jewish supremacists are of course the quickest ones to condemn right-wingers for casually labeling people as “communists,??? but these slanderers have no compunction to label us as “haters??? and “Nazis??? because we dare to disagree with them. Calling someone a hater is the modern equivalent to calling someone a blasphemer or heretic in the middle ages.

You can listen to the complete tapes of the Conference on my Internet Site, davidduke.com. You can hear for yourself the over 30 hours of speeches. And you get the DVDs or VHS tapes and see the Conference speeches. You will find that not one person advocated hatred, Nazism or racial supremacy. Let me repeat that! Not one speaker advocated White supremacy! No speakers supported European Americans being supreme or ruling over others, but simply expressed the desire to preserve our heritage and culture in our own homelands. For instance, we don’t seek to control the media of other nations ,but naturally do want our own nation’s media to reflect our own heritage and values and to be truly free.

As you can see by my articles on the media on my website and in my book, Jewish Supremacism, I show quite clearly how Jewish supremacists are the ones who really want supremacy over other people. They not only want to only control the media in Israel but to control it in all Western nations as well. They not only want to dictate the oppressive and criminal polices of the Israeli government in Israel, but they want to control foreign governments to support Israel’s criminal policies! And, they seek laws to deny us free speech, even the right to criticize their own supremacism! In Canada recently, Jewish leaders were able to get the Canadian government to ban, seize and burn my books!

Next, please notice how the SPLC attacks the New Orleans Protocol without stating clearly what it is. They do that because the actual New Orleans Protocol refutes the distorted image they try to portray of us!

The New Orleans Protocol has three fundamental points:

1) Zero tolerance for violence and suggested violence.

2) Keeping a high moral tone in everything we write and say. A complete rejection of crude or hateful speech.

3) Cooperation and goodwill between European American organizations who take this high road.

By what the SPLC constantly writes, you would think that they would welcome European American organizations coming together and strongly condemning violence. Not only did the Protocols condemn that kind of activity, Conference speakers repeatedly showed how such violence is completely counterproductive and harmful to our principles and the political success of our program. Notice how the SPLC in talking about the New Orleans Protocol completely left out this very important part of the Protocol. They made sure that you didn’t learn about this.

The SPLC also says that I represent hate and am trying to disguise our real intentions. Well, this Protocol was written for our own organizations and leaders, not the public, and it makes clear our stand against hateful rhetoric in our Movement. It shows that our Movement must maintain a high moral tone and echo the traditional decency and values of European civilization. It holds that our leaders and activists must never allow the Hollywood image of the intolerant, hateful person to be present in our ranks.

Instead of saying that this is a good development, that I and other leaders came together and condemned violence and hateful or crude rhetoric, they condemn us for quote, “mainstreaming hate.???

The ugly truth is that they want us to be violent and hateful, because they know that we won’t get anywhere that way and they won’t be able to raise nearly as much money! Even though they say they are against hate-speech and violence, the SPLC raises millions by promoting the idea of an imminent threat from the right. A non-violent, high toned Movement is exactly what they don’t want!

There are many other distortions and lies in the SPLC letters and newspaper. One of the most blatant (and ridiculous) is that Conference leaders promoted the idea that we should coach little league teams so we could influence young and impressionable minds. Give me a break! Nothing of the kind was said at the conference. During the political talks of Howie Farrell and Kenny Knight they talked about how successful candidates need to show responsibility to their communities and that it is good for potential candidates to be active in community organizations and charities. Such would be said at any candidate school of the Democratic or Republican Party. Nothing was said about affecting the impressionable young minds of little leaguers! Again, you can listen to the tapes yourself and hear exactly what was said.

By the way, I also said that people in the Movement have a tendency to withdraw from mainstream community or church organizations when contrary views are expressed. It is important that our people remain in those groups and be a voice for what is right. For instance, if someone in Sunday school starts to repeat the lie that a good Christian should support Israel, then it is his responsibility to show that in effect a good Christian has a moral obligation to oppose the anti-Christian, criminal actions of Israel.

In another example: If someone is involved in an organization opposing the Iraq War and Occupation it is important that he helps dispel the common misconception that the war was fought over oil or for any true American interests, for the truth is that the war was and is terribly damaging to our American interests — including our need for oil. The price of oil, for instance, is now at all-time highs (something I predicted before the war) and there has been real damage and horrendous cost to America in lives, money, business and goodwill.

The war was not about “American Imperialism,??? it was and is about Israel using us to smash one of their biggest enemies, Saddam Hussein and they cared not for the terrible consequences for America. In fact, they are happy that much hatred of the Moslem world was deflected somewhat from Israel to the United States! The chief architects of the American war policy were Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, two radical Jewish Supremacists who are supporters of the most extreme Movements in Israel.

You see, I have just expressed my real opinions and now you might understand why Mark Potok of the SPLC and Abraham Foxman of the ADL hate me. If they are sincere about fighting racism and supremacism, let them answer these questions:

When is Mr. Potok of the SPLC or Mr. Foxman of the ADL going to come out and oppose Apartheid Israel and the American Jewish organizations that support it?

When are they going to expose and condemn the blatant Jewish supremacism and anti-Gentile hatred in the largest American Jewish newspaper, Jewish Week?

When are they going to condemn the American Jewish Committee and the thousands of other Jewish organizations that oppose intermarriage of Jews and non-Jews?

There is nothing sinister about our people advancing their own political and social opinions, but the SPLC is very afraid of the groups who signed the New Orleans Protocol because we expose their own hypocritical, Jewish supremacist agenda.

The truth is they are not worried about me because I am violent, they worry about me because I am not.

They don’t worry about me because I am hateful, they worry about me because I express myself intelligently and decently.

They worry about me simply because I expose their own subservience to the Jewish supremacist agenda, and because I expose their blatant hypocrisy.

The only way they can effectively attack me is to call me names such as hater, bigot, Nazi etc. and distort and lie about what I say.

But, thank God, you have been able through the power of the Internet, to hear the other side of this vital story. And I thank you for being open-minded enough to have listened to my point of view. Please don’t stop now. Keep using the Internet to find the facts that people like Potok and Foxman want to keep from you.

Keep using the Internet to discover the lies fed to us by the supremacists who deceptively and deliberately acquired control of our vital means of mass communication. By acquiring control of our major channels of information they almost closed off our ability to discover these lies. But, Thank God, the Internet, one channel of information still remains open to us. It’s up to you to use it as you are doing right now. And it is up to you to contact your friends and family and share the truth one person at a time.

Thankfully, millions are learning the truth every day across America and the world. That’s why Jewish supremacists such as Foxman and Potok have to mount their campaign of lies and distortions.

For Our Heritage and Freedom!

Source
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:14 PM   #2
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate


Summary: The Southern Poverty Law Center began with an admirable purpose but long ago transformed into a machine for raising money and launching left-wing political attacks. Lately it’s become more of a threat to free speech and civil debate than a defender of the weak or a foe of violent extremism. It has also taken in millions from the Picower Foundation, whose own funds came largely from founder Jeffry Picower’s “investing” in his old friend Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

On August 15, 2012, an angry gay rights activist named Floyd Corkins stormed the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and began shooting. Corkins shot a brave security guard in the arm, but the guard still managed to wrestle him to the ground before he could kill or injure others.

Corkins was carrying 50 bullets and two loaded magazines for his 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol; 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches; and the address of another potential target, the Traditional Values Coalition. Before initiating his shooting spree, Corkins reportedly said, “I don’t like your politics.”

Reacting to the shooting, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated: “Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

Conclusion
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a wealthy, well-connected, organized attack machine of the extreme political Left. It shares strategies, goals, and tactics with other similar organizations and colludes with them in campaigns of defamation, disinformation and legal threats to silence and/or criminalize political opponents.

The SPLC has unjustifiably secured itself a position of influence within our government and society. Its very presence threatens our freedoms and First Amendment rights. It abuses our system of justice, while hiding behind a Constitution for which it has little respect.

Sorce
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:17 PM   #3
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

Southern Poverty Law Center Finds Fewer Militias, Hypes Militia Threat Anyway


The Southern Poverty Law Center has released its annual report on "The Year in Hate and Extremism," in which the organization estimates the size of the "extremist" threat. Since its count of hate groups has dropped since last year—the number went down from 1,018 to 1,007—the center is hyping a 7 percent increase in another category: what it calls "conspiracy-minded antigovernment 'Patriot' groups." The SPLC's definition of "Patriot" is pretty broad: The list ranges from the conservative websites WorldNetDaily and FreeRepublic.com to the Moorish Science Temple and its offshoots. The Moors, a black militant movement, are presumably included because they sometimes borrow ideas from the sovereign citizens and other folks often associated with the right.

For SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok, that 7 percent surge is a sign that a growing terrorist threat demands the Department of Homeland Security's attention:

Eighteen years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote then-Attorney General Janet Reno to warn about extremists in the militia movement, saying that the "mixture of armed groups and those who hate" was "a recipe for disaster." Just six months later, the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. Today, with our country’s political polarization at historic levels and government officials being furiously demonized by Patriots, we may be approaching a comparable moment.

In the 1990s, warnings that might have averted some of the violence from the radical right failed to stick. Now, as we face another large and growing threat from the extremists of the Patriot movement, the country needs to do better. One important start would be to demand that the Department of Homeland Security, which gutted its non-Islamic domestic terrorism unit after unjustified criticism from the political right, rebuild its important intelligence capabilities.

A different story emerges if you study the list itself. For one thing, while the number of Patriot groups has gone up since last year, the number of militia groups has gone down, from 334 to 321. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are fewer people involved in militias: One quirk of the SPLC's decision to measure activity by counting groups is that if an organization splinters in a faction fight that shows up as growth, but if two smaller groups join forces it looks like shrinkage. But given that Potok invokes the militias in both the opening and the conclusion of his article, and given that the article makes a big deal of the increased Patriot count, it seems disingenuous not to mention that the militia count is actually declining.

More important, neither the number of militias nor the number of Patriot groups writ large is a good proxy for the number of potential terrorists. As I wrote in response to an earlier edition of the SPLC's list, the Oath Keepers—whose chapters take up 67 spots on the 2013 list—have a history of distancing themselves from violent-minded supporters, and the whole point of the organization is to persuade the government's agents to refuse orders the group considers unconstitutional, a central tactic not of terrorism but of nonviolent civil resistance. Meanwhile, 41 groups on the SPLC list are chapters of the John Birch Society. Far from an adjunct to the militias, the Birchers—notorious for their own conspiracy theories—devoted a lot of effort in the '90s to debunking the more elaborate conspiracy yarns popular in much of the militia world. They frown on insurrectionary violence, too, sometimes suggesting that it merely plays into the hands of the Grand Cabal.

Source
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:20 PM   #4
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

Southern Poverty Law Center Website Triggered FRC Shooting


The Family Research Council shooter, who pleaded guilty today to a terrorism charge, picked his target off a "hate map" on the website of the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center which is upset with the conservative group's opposition to gay rights.

Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty to three charges including a charge of committing an act of terrorism related to the August 15, 2012 injuring of FRC's guard. He told the FBI that he wanted to kill anti-gay targets and went to the law center's website for ideas.

At a court hearing where his comments to the FBI were revealed, he said that he intended to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims' faces, and kill the guard." The shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.
Sign Up for the Paul Bedard newsletter!

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that the Southern Poverty Law Center should take responsibility for the shooting and take down their hate map.

"The day after Floyd Corkins came into the FRC headquarter and opened fire wounding one of our team members, I stated that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a 'hate group,'" he said.

"Once again, I call on the SPLC to put an immediate stop to its practice of labeling organizations that oppose their promotion of homosexuality," said Perkins, adding, "Whether the SPLC continues to demonize those who hold to biblical morality or not, the Family Research Council will remain unequivocally committed to our mission of advancing faith, family and freedom."

His comments had no impact at the law center. Their "hate map" still includes FRC.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/southe...rticle/2520748
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:25 PM   #5
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

SPLC Blames White-People for ‘The Minorities Economic Problems’


August 30,2013 Montgomery, Alabama (SPLC, CoCC) – SPLC President Richard Cohen spewed another bizarre anti-white rant claiming that discrimination against black people is increasing. He also says that white people are putting black people in jail for “trivial offenses.” This is the same organization that says rampant black on white mob attacks are not racially motivated. This is the same organization that says rape is almost never, if ever at all, a hate crime.

The SPLC claims that white on black hate crimes are rampant and then cites examples that are years, decades, or even a half century old. Then they turn around and say that brutal racially motivated black on white crime, that happened yesterday, doesn’t count!

The SPLC makes excuses for black crime thus encouraging more black crime. Then they say it is racist to send black people to jail for committing crimes!

This is not just asinine and irresponsible rhetoric. This is an attack on all white people.

Cohen complains that too many black people are poor “in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.” Talk about hypocrisy. The SPLC is one of the biggest oceans of prosperity in the entire state of Alabama. The SPLC has a net worth of $250 million dollars. Richard Cohen has a base salary of $300k plus extras. In a poor state like Alabama, he is a one man ocean of prosperity. SPLC founder Morris Dees is one of the highest paid “not for profit” execs in the nation. He lives like a Saudi King flaunting his wealth in the middle of a county chock full of poor people.

http://usnationalistnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:34 PM   #6
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

While kikes lead the fight to take Americans' guns away, lead the flood of third world illegal immigrants into white nations, they practice a double standard when it comes to kikes. You won't find these kikes on the SPLC site

Jewish Terrorist Militia Groups Training in US Forests


__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:43 PM   #7
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

Why Literally Everyone in the World Hates the Jews

Two new scholarly books show how even the most neutral academic can feel bound to answer anti-Semites’ demonic vigor in kind

In many parts of the world, Jews are increasingly unwelcome in the 21st century. The number of countries in which wearing visibly Jewish clothing such as a kippa means risking physical violence has hit an all-time high. On both the individual and the national level, Jews are targeted with extraordinary ferocity: We hear Israelis (but no one else) being compared to Nazis; we are told that Jewish nationalism is oppressive and archaic; that Israel is a uniquely racist country; that Israel’s terrible misdeeds explain why people hate Jews. Instead of being seen as ordinary or all too human, Jews are seen as carriers of a uniquely transcendent evil. No other group of people on the planet is accused so much and of such fantastic wrongs. For a few decades after the Holocaust, it seemed that anti-Semitism might wane or even die out. That hope has now been defeated. Could anything we do or say stem the tide, or will Jew-hatred persist as long as there are Jews to hate?

Anti-Semitism is an inert object of a kind not usually met with in the social sciences. While historians try to see everything in its context to show how our human environment alters our beliefs, anti-Semitism resists context; it is a rock-hard conviction so persistent and monomaniacal that, for all we can tell, it will never go away. In the words of Edouard Drumont, the 19th-century anti-Jewish propagandist, “All comes from the Jew; all returns to the Jew.” Yet when we recognize this persistence, we enter, disturbingly, into a debate with the anti-Semite. The Jew-hater and the maligned Jew face off eternally, one playing offense and the other defense. This is the anti-Semites’ revenge: They make us sound like ranters when we complain about them.

But it’s crucial for Jews to talk about anti-Semitism, even as we hear that Jews are so secure these days that anti-Semitism can’t be very significant; that Jews discuss anti-Semitism in order to claim special privileges; that Jew haters are merely nutty rather than dangerous; that talking about anti-Semitism in the Muslim world means that you are a “Likudnik,” or something worse. We have to rebut these wrong-headed sentiments. But a further challenge looms: When we talk about anti-Semitism, we risk confusing our personal wounds with the larger history we’re trying to grasp. Scholarly detachment is a needed remedy. But as two recent books show, being detached is harder than it looks, since even the most neutral academic feels bound to strike back, to answer the anti-Semite’s demonic vigor with a few accusations of his or her own.

***

In new and heated account of the recent rise in global anti-Semitism, The Devil That Never Dies, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen relies heavily on public opinion surveys, many of which indeed make grim reading. Over 89 percent of the citizens of Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan have a “very unfavorable” opinion of Jews—only a tiny percentage chose “somewhat unfavorable,” and even fewer “favorable.” In these countries only two or three people in a hundred have a positive impression of Jews. By contrast, a mere 2 percent of Lebanese see Christians very unfavorably, a remarkable statistic given the country’s history of violence between Muslims and Christians. It is definitely worth pausing to contemplate such unpleasant facts.

It is also a fact, according to European public opinion, that Israel poses the greatest danger to world peace, presumably because it stirs up Muslim enmity. Yet shockingly, most Americans said much the same thing about Jews in a series of surveys taken by the Opinion Research Corporation during WWII, before the State of Israel was founded: Jews posed a greater threat to the United States than Germany or Japan, with whom America was at war. The wish to transfer guilt from persecutors to victims is the same both then and now: If the Jew were less of a cause of trouble, wars might be avoided.

Today’s canonical form of anti-Semitism is formally directed at the State of Israel. Yet as former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has remarked, “Anti-Zionism inevitably leads to anti-Semitism.” In the anti-Zionist’s eyes, actual Israeli wrongs are generally not akin to the wrongs committed by other sovereign states, like America, China, or Greece, but rather metastasize into proof of monstrous guilt. Goldhagen is right to say that Jews alone live in a country that is seen by large parts of the world as “self-invalidating.” Since its very existence is understood as a provocation by so many in the Muslim world, Israel’s right to even the barest accouterments of sovereignty comes into question in way that truly makes the Jewish State unique among the nations. As Goldhagen writes, Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israel is the “unifying symbol” for many in the world who have never been troubled by oppression of Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria, or the fate of the world’s many other stateless peoples, like the Kurds, Tamils, Tibetans, or Chechens.

Goldhagen’s main points are hard to contradict. But he also runs into the trouble that comes from his habit of denouncing rather than evaluating. Indeed, Goldhagen often seems interested mainly in racking up an enemies’ list, at which point his analysis becomes dully single-minded. Everyone from Stéphane Hessel to Navi Pillay becomes an anti-Semite in his eyes; and he thinks that Palestinians who say that Jerusalem belongs to them alone are also anti-Semites (even as the prime minister of Israel regularly announces that Jerusalem should never be divided). And his writing style is often maladroit and hyperactive, to the point where one becomes uncomfortable; the fact that most of his research comes from the Web makes his book a far cry from the nuanced, scholarly approach to anti-Semitism offered in, say, recent works by Anthony Julius and Robert Wistrich.

He is at his most explosive when writing on other religions. “The Christians” and “the Muslims” become monolithic enemies, nearly analogous to the anti-Semite’s “Jews.” The similarity in rhetoric leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth—and it overlooks the many non-Jews who are sympathetic to Israel and to other Jewish causes. If anti-Semitism is widely shared in today’s Europe and the Middle East, nations are still complex entities—and Goldhagen would have done better to recognize some of this complexity. There is no mention in his book of the many ardent defenders of Jewish rights and Jewish memory in France, Germany, Poland, and elsewhere (including elected leaders of these countries).

He proclaims that the Quran is anti-Semitic, writing that “The Qur’an’s and Hadith’s treatment of Jews is horrifying, grounded in the foundational anti-Semitic paradigm, and provides the foundation for the Arab and Islamic world’s profound anti-Semitism.” It would be wiser for Goldhagen to recognize that religious traditions are capable of change on the Jewish issue, as the Catholic Church and many Protestant sects have showed us, and as Islam may yet show us, too.

But when he deals with Catholics, Goldhagen becomes an outright conspiracy-monger. On the revelations about sexual misconduct among Catholic priests, he writes, “The Church’s reflex behind the scenes was to blame the Jews, a view that was publicly articulated in 2010 by Bishop Giacomo Babini, who said that a ‘Zionist attack’ was behind the criticism of the Pope over the sex abuse scandal … Of course, the Church’s formal public stance was to deny and repudiate this Italian bishop’s public statements.” Does Goldhagen seriously think that the Vatican believes “Zionists” are behind the aggrieved response to Catholic sexual abuse? When the church firmly condemns anti-Semitism, as it did in response to the lunatic Babini, and as it has often done in recent years (most recently, the Vatican newspaper denounced Roger Waters’ use in concert of a floating pig adorned with the star of David), Goldhagen discounts such statements as inadequate, or even mere window dressing: The church “has failed to excise anti-Semitism from its teaching and liturgy,” he writes. He slips easily, and dangerously, from the ravings of one bishop to a claim, offered without a shred of evidence, that the Vatican remains secretly anti-Semitic, even when it speaks out against Jew-hatred. It’s hard not to feel that what Goldhagen does to the church is exactly what anti-Semites do to Jews.

While Goldhagen shouts from the rooftops about the pressing threat of anti-Semitism, David Nirenberg presents a calm, scholarly antidote. Nirenberg, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought, has rebranded anti-Semitism as “Anti-Judaism”: a more abstract entity that has less to do with pogroms than with figures of thought. With magisterial sweep, Nirenberg shows that since antiquity virtually every aspect of life has been criticized as “Jewish”; that “Jewish ideas” are nearly always seen as having the power to corrupt the larger culture; and that Christian and Muslim notions of Jewishness have little or nothing to do with the behavior or beliefs of actual Jews. Nirenberg says he’s not concerned with defending Jews or Israel, only with describing a problem in intellectual history, yet he draws attention to a phenomenon that can only be enormously alarming: Why were Jews seen as so serious a threat to civilization that they needed to be exterminated, and on the basis of such imaginary evidence?

Most of Nirenberg’s instances of anti-Judaism are depressingly familiar. We are told for centuries on end that Jews care only for the letter of the law, that they cling to ritual observance but ignore the spirit and are therefore against life. (The irony is that the Hebrew prophets themselves battled against mere empty ritual and for true service to God.) When Romantic philosophers look down on mere reason, it too becomes Jewish, the opposite of living, breathing thought. Nirenberg refers to “the work done by figures of Judaism” in the Christian and Muslim traditions and in post-Enlightenment philosophy as well—but the “work” he describes is almost always a caricature of thought rather than real thinking.

The instances Nirenberg selects have little or nothing to do with any real Jewish tradition, as he himself concedes. But if Christians and Muslims exclude actual Jews so completely, if anti-Judaism is as monolithic as Nirenberg says it is, then Jewishness really is utterly isolated—and it becomes hard to explain how the Talmud influenced European law and political theory so profoundly, or how the Exodus story became a beacon for so many revolutionary movements in Europe and the Americas. If all the non-Jewish world knows is a faded, inaccurate cartoon version of the Jew, then Judaism’s claims to be an (or the) origin of Western religion and ethics is untrue. Unless this is a case of anxiety of influence: The more indebted Christianity and Islam are to Judaism, the more they turn against their Jewish sources. Nirenberg’s chosen angle means that he fails to reveal any significant interplay between Jewish and non-Jewish thinkers, letting us believe that real-life Judaism (which, he implies, lies beyond the boundary of his subject) must inhabit its own dark planet, lightyears away from the galaxies of the Gentiles.

Unlike Goldhagen, Nirenberg ultimately has little interest in seeing behind every anti-Jewish snub a reminder of genocide. Yet he too knows only too well that anti-Jewish violence is always a possibility. Nirenberg chillingly remarks that “we live in an age in which millions of people are exposed daily to some variant of the argument that the challenges of the world they live in are best explained in terms of ‘Israel.’ ” Although there are bright spots in Islamic-Jewish relations, there is also a pervading darkness that cannot be ignored: Anti-Semitism is something like a majority view in more than a few Muslim countries. An overwhelming consensus about the evil influence of Jews, if combined with sufficient military power, would be just as dangerous today as it was in the 1930s.

***

The choice between Goldhagen-style polemics and Nirenberg’s scholarly coolness has a turbulent recent past in the academic study of anti-Semitism. The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism was abruptly ended by the Yale administration in 2011. The director of the institute, Charles Small, had little connection to the Yale community, and he saw himself as a political advocate as well as a scholar, frequently issuing topical policy statements on the Iranian threat to Israel. In their comments on the fracas at Yale, renowned scholars of anti-Semitism like Deborah Lipstadt and Robert Wistrich lined up against Small. “What happened in the past [at Yale] was a mess,” Alvin Rosenfeld, director of Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and editor of a new anthology, Resurgent Antisemitism: Global Perspectives, remarked to me in a recent interview.

Within a few weeks of the controversy, Yale replaced the defunct YIISA with the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, which is headed by a professor of French, Maurice Samuels. In an interview, Samuels said, “About half of our program is dedicated to historical forms of anti-Semitism, including Nazism, and about half is dedicated to contemporary forms.” By contrast, Small’s institute was almost completely devoted to current anti-Semitism, especially in the Muslim world. This November, the Yale program will host a panel on Nirenberg’s Anti-Judaism.

There are now at least a half-dozen academic programs devoted to the study of anti-Semitism: In addition to the ones at Indiana, Yale, and Tel Aviv, Hebrew University has the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, headed by Wistrich. There is also a program at Berlin’s Technische Universität, and London’s Birkbeck College, part of the University of London, houses the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism. The programs in Berlin and London combine their focus on anti-Semitism with an interest in other kinds of racism, including current anti-immigrant violence in Europe. The Pears Institute’s homepage announces that “we set anti-Semitism within a wider context,” seeing it “as part of the broader phenomenon of religious and racial intolerance.” Scott Ury, director of Tel Aviv University’s Roth Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism and Racism, noted in an email that “the most difficult challenge facing the scholar of anti-Semitism is overcoming the inescapable present,” given the fact that anti-Semitism is such a constant topic of conversation among Jews around the world, and a political football for Israeli (and other) politicians. Ury wrote that “We end up asking ourselves: are we allowing our personal opinions and experiences to color our research on anti-Semitism?”

At both TU and Birkbeck, Alvin Rosenfeld told me, “anti-Semitism is subsumed under a larger category of prejudice, bias, and racism. That’s partly right, but if you stop there you’ll never really understand it.” This is another large divide among scholars of anti-Semitism: Should this hatred be seen alongside others, or is there a danger of missing what’s distinctive about anti-Semitism when it’s treated as one bias among many? “People who dislike Jews rarely dislike only Jews,” David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute, wrote. This June, the Pears Institute hosted an aggressively comparative conference, “Boycotts: Past and Present.” The conference ranged widely, from anti-Jewish boycotts in 19th- and 20th-century Europe to the boycott of apartheid South Africa and—finally, inevitably—the BDS movement. “It was very polite, no shouting,” remarked Samuels. “Both sides of the debate had a voice” at the conference, Feldman noted, pro- and anti-BDS: “Both positions were up for examination.” It’s hard to imagine a civilized argument over BDS occurring in New York City, but it’s important to know that it can happen: That’s what an academic setting, at its best, can do.

***

Protesting against the resurgent plague of anti-Semitism, as Goldhagen so adamantly does, is not the same thing as trying seriously to understand how it works. As Samuels told me, “There’s a difference between advocacy and scholarship, though sometimes advocacy can be good for scholarship.” Declaring yourself for Jews and against their enemies does not mean that you’ve explained why these enemies do what they do.

There’s another problem, too. Being aware of anti-Semitism seems a fundamentally distinct mission from appreciating Jewish traditions, and it’s often hard to know what the two things have to do with each other. Yet, as Samuels noted in our interview, it’s necessary to study anti-Semitism because “You can’t really understand the positive aspects of Jewish culture without understanding this too.” Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism as well as Isaiah Berlin, in his virtuosic essay “Jewish Slavery and Emancipation,” showed that half-assimilated Jews can draw on, and turn inside out, anti-Semitic prejudices. It’s hard to imagine Disraeli or Proust, not to mention the history of American comedy, outside of this messy but fertile dynamic.

But both Nirenberg and Goldhagen, for all their differences, reject this approach; they insist that there must be no commerce between Jews’ ideas about themselves and anti-Semites’ ideas about Jews. Both men have understandable qualms about seeing anti-Semitism as a root of any Jewish creativity, given how anti-Semitic bigotry led to mass extermination. Yet their reticence means that they miss out on a central, if sometimes troubling, aspect of Jewish history—the way Jews react to what the world thinks about them. Perhaps the most basic lesson from the grim continuing history of anti-Semitism is that anti-Semites don’t get to say what the Jew is. Jews do, and each Jew does, and those answers are bound to be rich, confusing, and deeply personal—responses that the anti-Semite will fail utterly to recognize.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts...semitism?all=1
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 02:46 PM   #8
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy


They tie the jewish neo-cons to 9/11


__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 05:12 PM   #9
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

Let a jew explain what jews are to you.

Jew Bobby Fischer speaks about Jews


__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2014, 05:15 PM   #10
Fred O'Malley
Administrator
 
Fred O'Malley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: American Dystopian Utopia
Posts: 56,171
Rep Power: 50
Fred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations GodFred O'Malley is a White Nations God
Default

A Jewish Defector Warns America
Benjamin Freedman Speaks:


Quote:

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

Source
__________________
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. Lysander Spooner
History is written by tyrants that hanged heroes.
Fred O'Malley is offline   Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
splc


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:57 AM.
© White Nations™ . All rights reserved.
No part of White Nations Forum may be reproduced without consent.
Design by Creative IT World
Creator Web Team: Creative IT World

Blue Eyed Devils - Beating & Kicking (MP3 Audio)
WN Forum Comment, Video & Lyrics