“A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March”

September 9, 2013 Jaye Ryan Uncategorized 24

The aforementioned quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar can now be applied to the day after tomorrow:

September 11th

September 11th is a date of violence, intrigue, terrorism and war. White Americans get targeted and or used and abused on this date. It isn’t a safe, peaceful White day.

You don’t have to be some conspiracy mongering loon to be careful and expect the worst on Sept 11th. “The powers that be” might do a missile attack on Sept 11th against the secular, rather White Arab nation of Syria, let the Middle East descend to sectarian anarchy, then bomb Iran. Fox News and various lying Neo Con media might try to spin this attack as some kind of justified strike against radical Islam, “remember 9-11-01”! That’s what these criminals did to start the second war against Iraq.

So, today might be a good day to clean up your computer, put away racist literature, get guns in good order and maybe expect some harassment from men in silk suits. for those of you who go in for false flag operation thinking, well tomorrow could be a big day.

Real, nasty NW Muslims like to do violent, vicious things to White people to celebrate 9-11-01, yeah some nasty NW Muslims to violent nasty things, tomorrow’s their day – kind of like Devil’s Night in Detroit (Halloween), New Year’s Eve in the Black, Muslim slums in France.

“A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.”
Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene 2

Jack Ryan bids you beware Sept. 11th

24 Comments

  1. This time, the lying warmongering media will be MSNBC. Have you seen MSNBC in the last week or so? All the neo-cons that MSNBC wanted to roast in the past are now frequent MSNBC guests, Bill Kristol as an example. I wouldn’t be surprised if Karl Roverrated and his fat ass doesn’t start showing up on MSNBC soon. Meanwhile, FNC, while still on the side of intervening in Syria, isn’t thirsting for blood like MSNBC.

    Meanwhile, 9/11 this year is my first day of a business trip.

  4. We have some good news today. The New York Times/Jew York Times has a articles and commentary bemoaning the growing isolationist sentiment in the USA against a military strike against Syria and also the growing sentiment that immigration “reform” (amnesty) is going to put on the back burner.

    So our activism is having some solid success.

    Don’t despair, don’t give up.

  5. bemoaning the growing isolationist sentiment in the USA against a military strike against Syria

    Not even 9% in Drudge’s poll support going into Syria. The only reason that liberals and Democrats aren’t lock step in line in opposition to Syria is because Obama is a black liberal Democrat.

    I’m about 60% of the way through my calling every member of the House of Representatives to voice my opposition to amnesty and open borders. And I’m still continuing to do that even though Syria is front burner, because so few people actually support Syria that the massive almost universal opposition ought to speak for itself. That and as much as I don’t want us to go into Syria, I consider immigration to be more important.

  6. A couple of things about this Keller screed in the NYT:

    1. He conflates immigration patriotism with the growth of the surveillance state. Actually, most immigration patriots no want part of the surveillance state, and recognize that the surveillance state is a natural consequence of opening the borders and letting any non-white waltz on in. This is what is so infuriating to us about libertarian opposition to the surveillance state and support for open borders at the same time.

    2. “Seeing Russia from my front yard” came from Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. Since when did NYT columnists engage in serious political analysis based on comedy shows?

    3. “Isolationism is strong in the Tea Party.” If true, then it’s a very recent development for the TPM. A positive one, I should say, but foreign policy isolationism was not an initial organizing principle of the TPM.

    4. Keller is repeating the hobby horse theory that “the Jews are dragging us into Syria.” I’ve heard other theories that it’s Saudi Arabia, etc. I first thought that liberal obsession with WMD proliferation was the cause. But the Daily Caller just came out today with an article that in the Senate foreign relations committee vote that approved Syria, the 10-7-1 vote, the 10 yes votes got almost twice as much on average campaign money from the military-industrial complex than the seven no votes. There’s your explanation: Follow the money. I bet there’s a really practical explanation along those lines about why this Keller is so hot to trot to get us into Syria. It’s probably something along the lines of his son works for Boeing or is a K Street lobbyist at an outfit that the military-industrial complex patronizes.

    5. Charles Lindbergh quit the America First Committee when it got too “anti-Semitic.”

    6. Roosevelt’s war reluctance was only during re-election campaigns. In reality, he was doing everything he could from behind the scenes to get the United States into WWII on the side of the Allies, including that which ultimately worked, baiting the Japanese into attacking us.

  7. Bill Keller: ‘Isolationism is strong in the Tea Party, where mistrust of executive power is profound and where being able to see Russia from your front yard counts as mastery of international affairs.’

    Couldn’t resist the opportunity to disparage the Tea Party rubble, could we Bill?

    Bill Keller: ‘But sophisticated readers of The New York Times are not immune, or so it seems from the comments that arrive when I write in defense of a more assertive foreign policy.’

    Oh yes, of course, the sophisticated readers of the Jew York Times. Screw you!

    Bill Keller: ‘In 2013, it is supposedly the Israelis duping us into fighting their battles’

    If Keller omitted the word -supposedly- from that sentence it would have been the most truthful line in his entire piece.

    Bill Keller: “And, sure enough, the first comment posted on The Washington Post version of this story was, “So how many Americans will die for Israel this time around?”

    Good question.

    Answer: As many as it takes. Just as long the precious Jews don’t get any hairs on their heads singed.

    Let the Jews fight their own battles for a change.

  8. Critters Obama’s constincuency rely on gov freebies. Immigration invasion Congress don’t want to deal with. Economy manufacture is second class innovation. Major industry of employment-1 in 3 residents works for the federal, state,local, military or wal-mart.

    Nations go to war.

  11. Keller says Lindbergh was anti-semitic.

    Seems to me Lindy went out of his way to prove he was not. However, no criticism of the jew is allowed. The quotation from his wife is particularly interesting.

    Pertinent info from Wiki:

    Charles Lindbergh speaking at an AFC rally

    In his January 23, 1941, testimony in opposition to the Lend-Lease Bill before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, LindberLh proposed that the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Germany. President Roosevelt publicly criticized Lindbergh’s views on neutrality three months later during a White House press conference on April 25, 1941, as being those of a “defeatist and appeaser”

    and compared him to U.S. Rep. Clement L. Vallandigham (D-OH), the leader of the “Copperhead” movement that had opposed the American Civil War.

    Three days later Lindbergh resigned his commission as a colonel in the U.S. Army Air Corps in an April 28 letter to the President in which he said that he could find “no honorable alternative” to his taking such an action after Roosevelt had publicly questioned his loyalty.

    In a speech at an America First rally at the Des Moines Coliseum on September 11, 1941, “Who Are the War Agitators?”, Lindbergh claimed the three groups, “pressing this country toward war [are] the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration”

    and said of Jewish groups,“ Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. ”

    In the speech, he warned of the Jewish people’s “large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government”. However, he went on to condemn Nazi Germany’s antisemitism: “No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany.” Lindbergh declared,

    “ I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.[109] ”

    The speech was heavily criticized as being anti-Semitic.

    In response Lindbergh stated again he was not anti-Semitic, but he did not back away from his statements.

    Lindbergh’s wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh had concerns about the reaction to the speech and how it would affect his reputation, wrongfully in her view.

    From her diary:
    “ … I have the greatest faith in [Lindbergh] as a person — in his integrity, his courage, and his essential goodness, fairness, and kindness — his nobility really … How then explain my profound feeling of grief about what he is doing? If what he said is the truth (and I am inclined to think it is), why was it wrong to state it? He was naming the groups that were pro-war. No one minds his naming the British or the Administration.
    But to name “Jew” is un-American — even if it is done without hate or even criticism. Why?’

    ‘Lindbergh argued that America did not have any business attacking Germany and believed in upholding the Monroe Doctrine, which his interventionist rivals felt was outdated. In his autobiography he wrote:

    “ I was deeply concerned that the potentially gigantic power of America, guided by uninformed and impractical idealism, might crusade into Europe to destroy Hitler without realizing that Hitler’s destruction would lay Europe open to the rape, loot and barbarism of Soviet Russia’s forces, causing possibly the fatal wounding of western civilization.”

    Sam: Bout time we acknowledge he was right.

  13. Chris, I don’t remember those days on OD.

    Jack, you’re at your best from my point of view when you advocate real, practical political activity and involvement, in contrast to the crowd that wants to sit back and wait for The Collapse to arrive, followed by Secession and the moving of the Africans north, and even the taking of revenge on The Yankees. (I’m supportive of secession and the establishment of a southern republic, however.)

  15. Sir or Madam Prune, that was the closest to a complete sentence yet, with only the verb missing, coherent enough, so that we can guess what you intended !

  17. Aside from the repression of Indians and minor naval engagements to punish piracy in the Mediterranean, and minor instances of cooperation with the British in the Pacific islands and the Opium Wars in China, not one but many Presidents did not go to war at all. However, even if ALL Presidents had presided over unjust wars, the fact remains that THIS President STILL presides over a very UNJUST WAR. Actually at least six of them, so far, in his first five years. Even if all Presidents had been war criminals, this President is still a war criminal. Let’s separate ourselves and oppose the Crusades and not share the guilt and in the punishment that must come because the Almighty is just.

  18. U.S Presidents engaged covert,overt military action. Jimmy Carter Funding the Talibans. JFK Bay of pigs and the start-up of Vietnam intervetion. Pacifist U.S. President?

  22. From Abe Lincoln to the present day White House executive office; Back the wrong horse for their own ends.This cannot continue indefinete. At some point, it will explode in its face like in wile e coyote who tries every tricks.

  23. Before the Civil War. America was Territorial. Defending the frontier. Mexico was no longer a threat. 1830s I believe the the U.S sent arm force to Mexico city. And the Indians never knew what hit them. Cause they were nomads.

Comments are closed.