Purism versus Realistic Politics
Posted on: 2012-11-06 15:53:23
No, compassion we have, for people who deserve our compassion. But since the world has no compassion for our people, then forgive us if we reserve our compassion for our people.
Those voting for a third party or not voting are purists. With this presidential election we are being presented with a political proposition. What are the facts? First of all, we know that either Obama or Romney is going to be the next president. Secondly, one of them has to be worse than the other even if it’s only by ten or twenty percent. A purist would not vote for one or the other; a purist is going to vote for the candidate that best represents his ideology; the purist doesn’t care if that candidate is only on the ballot in a few states, and if that candidate is only going to get less than one percent of the vote. The purist stands by his principals. This philosophy of purism is not effective in the political arena. In realistic politics, you have to have the ability to act in a calculated and strategic way. Purists make good ideologues and good revolutionaries, but they are ill-suited when it comes to politics. In politics, you often have to take what you can get.
Only Two Viable Strategies in this Election
There are only two viable strategies in this election: the first is to vote for Obama with the reasoning that he will do the most to destroy the country; this means that we would have a chance to come in and rebuild sooner than if Romney were elected. The second strategy is to vote for Romney with the reasoning that we will be making a political statement, that being that America is completely divided along racial lines. This statement would be echoed thousands of times by the mainstream media, and it would further the racial polarization that is now strongly building up steam. Additionally, a Romney presidency would give whites at least four more years to prepare for the tumultuous times that lie ahead of us.
Sadly, a vote for Governor Romney is by far the best choice.
Doing anything else, including not voting, would not be productive.
We must vote in this election -- and vote for Romney. Not voting or voting for any candidate other than Romney, no matter how pro-white his convictions and policies relative to Romney, is a vote for Obama. And we must oust this Marxist Islamic presidential interloper.
It's not simply a matter of the lesser of two evils, one a little worse than the other. No. Both are bad, but Obama could accelerate the final death of America and of the white race of America -- within his second term of presidency.
Let's look at this decision from the standpoint of what is best for the survival of white Americans as a people and the regaining of a powerful white nation in North America (whether in whole or in part).
We may well be in the endgame stage of the extermination of white America. At the same time, white Americans -- and white populations around the world -- are finally beginning to awaken to our precarious situation as a people. When we combine those two realities, which the enemy will see and appreciate even more clearly than do we, I think the result will be a strategic speed up in the rate and level of the white genocide worldwide -- including, perhaps especially, in America. Judging from the social and political meltdown that has transpired following the Second World War our enemies believe they have European Americans on the ropes. Rightly or wrongly they now mean to take us out if they can -- sooner rather than later.
The question, therefore, becomes: Do we want to enter into that endgame with our people only barely awakening with a smooth-talking but, just beneath his surface, viciously anti-white anti-American Islamic-Marxist Sores-controlled pro-Africa mulatto president; or with an Israeli-controlled white president who will implement the puppet master's plans, yes, but who does not hate America per se and does not hate European Americans?
Which one of these men will make it more difficult for white America to save itself? Both will hurt white America, yes. But one may kill it and the other would very likely buy white America 4 to 8 more years -- or even longer -- to more fully awaken to white genocide, as defined by the United Nations. The genocide would continue under a Romney presidency, yes. But at a much slower rate.
The Africa-Islam-centric Obama hates America and appears to want to kill it -- along with any vestiges of traditionally white America. This is not exactly true with Romney. Romney does not explicitly hate America. Nor does he explicitly hate the white American race. Those facts buy us more time -- which we badly need -- with a Romney presidency.
This is not a Zionist Tweedledee Dee versus a Zionist Tweedledum. No. Both are bad. But one is much worse than the other from the standpoint of white America extricating itself from its enemies long view extermination.
Let's look now at the political issues.
Eligibility to Be President
Obama: There are simply too many indicators that say he is not a natural born citizen of America and is, therefore, ineligible. He has seemingly perpetrated a huge eligibility fraud on America. Since Congress won't impeach him, or throw its weight behind a proper investigation it is up to the white people of America to oust him in this election. For us to continue to sanction this presidency is suicidal. In order to oust him, we must vote for Romney. There's no other way.
Romney: Eligible and his records are completely open.
Obama: Immediate amnesty for the 20 to 40 million illegal alien invaders.
Romney: No amnesty, at least on the surface. This alone makes it mandatory that white Americans vote for Romney.
Obama: Keep the borders wide open. Fight Arizona and any state who wants to restrict illegal immigration.
Romney: Close the borders. Build/complete a border fence. Give American border guards what they need in manpower and weaponry to close the borders and enforce the clear boundaries of America.
Obviously, Rooney's position is insufficient to solve white displacement. But it is a hell of lot more pro-white American than the Obama's position, and it buys us some time.
Centralization of Governmental Power
Obama: Marxism. His Marxist goal is total power in the federal government -- versus the state governments (Arizona is a useful illustration). And beyond that, total power in the hands of the executive branch. He clearly wants power over the legislative and judicial branches. This is blatantly unconstitutional -- but that's irrelevant to him. Obama wants to be the new dictator of an increasingly non-white America. He has publicly said so -- to a Hispanic audience.
Romney: Relatively decentralized power (relative to Obama). Romney is a capitalist, not a Marxist. He identifies with Reagan. Reagan believed in taking some power from the federal government and giving more power to the states. To the degree that Romney makes good on this philosophy, that is good for the survival of American white people.
Of course, Romney would not go far enough in this direction. But his position is better by far than Obama's.
The American Economy
Obama: Marxism. Increasingly centralized federal government control over the economy. Government run industry. Government control over small business. This is a proven failure in terms of the production of wealth and good paying jobs.
Romney: Decentralization of the economy. Less federal red tape, more freedom to small business owners, which would enhance the job situation for Whites.
Obama: Globalist. High taxation. Continue the De-industrialization of America.
Romney: He may also be a globalist. But he says he wants to be more protectionist.
Obama: He/Hillary has, I believe, already signed the UN gun-control treaty, which would make private ownership of guns illegal throughout the world. Obama has worked steadily to eviscerate the Second Amendment.
Romney: No more gun control legislation. He says he believes in the Second Amendment.
This is obviously a very important issue for the preservation of the European Americans -- not to mention self defense against the ever growing predation of non-whites on whites and a government that grows more militarized by the day.
Obama: Unilateral disarmament. He wants to weaken America militarily very significantly.
Romney: Strengthen America militarily.
Obama: He may be somewhat better than Romney on this issue -- although America has steadily fought Israeli wars throughout his presidency.
Romney: He has toned down his war-talk. But he's been talking tough, talking willing to wage war against Iran -- and even Russia. Of course, this would be terrible and would risk World War III. But it may be mostly talk. Recently he's said he 'didn't mean it,' that he wants peace for America. Overall this is Romney's relatively weak area. Of course, this makes him popular with the Israelis.
Free Speech and the Internet
Obama: He wants to shut both down.
Romney: Not clear. But, as a white American, he probably believes in freedom of speech more than Obama. Probably, and that includes the internet also. I would trust Romney at least more than Obama for keeping the internet free also.
Clearly, overall, Romney hurts us less. Obama is an immediate danger to white Americans in a second term.
It is vital for the preservation of white America that we oust the racially conscious Obama. The only way to do that is to vote for Romney. Not voting or voting for anyone else does not achieve that ouster. Of course, being who he is he won't go quietly. And that would be good too.