I'm sure the FBI is having a fine time of watching you right now....
"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
news:1sOb9.28611$Ic7.2088535 at news2.west.cox.net...
> Well said, Mr. August,
>> Let's repeat shallow dunce's statement once again so we can savor the
> moment:
>> > > > Now...I dunno JK well enough to hate him. I despise his apparent
> "Aryan
> > > > agenda" and won't condone it in the least but despising it is not
> > > > immediately equatable to "hate".
>>> Do most Christians "hate" or "despise" feminazis and jews for their
> backward, counterproductive, STUPID ideas and proposals and policies? It's
> doubtful that most Christians do, even though the despicable results are
> certainly worthy of disdain and disrespect.
>> But it's abundantly clear from this forum that jews and feminazis DO hate
> and despise anyone who would defend the "Aryan Race", even though they may
> not have the slightest idea what they're talking about.
>> So let's define the Aryan Race for them:
>> Here's the New American Desk Encyclopedia:
>> (Sanskrit: noble), name once used for the family of languages now known as
> Indo-European. The word acquired political connotations in Nazi Germany,
> being interpreted as "Nordic" or non-Jewish in race, and has thus been
> discredited in modern usage.
>>> Here's the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary
> Main Entry: 1Ary·an
> Pronunciation: 'ar-E-&n, 'er-; 'är-y&n
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Sanskrit Arya noble, belonging to the people speaking an
> Indo-European dialect who migrated into northern India
> Date: 1839
> 1 : INDO-EUROPEAN
> 2 a : of or relating to a hypothetical ethnic type illustrated by or
> descended from early speakers of Indo-European languages b : NORDIC c --
> used in Nazism to designate a supposed master race of non-Jewish
Caucasians
> having especially Nordic features
> 3 : of or relating to Indo-Iranian or its speakers
>> Main Entry: 2Aryan
> Function: noun
> Date: 1851
> 1 : INDO-EUROPEAN
> 2 a : NORDIC b : GENTILE
>> Main Entry: In·do-Ar·y·an
> Pronunciation: "in-dO-'ar-E-&n, -'er-; -'är-y&n
> Function: noun
> Date: 1881
> 1 : a member of one of the peoples of the Indian subcontinent speaking an
> Indo-European language
> 2 : one of the early Indo-European invaders of southern Asia
> 3 : a branch of the Indo-European language family that includes Hindi,
> Bengali, Punjabi, and other languages spoken primarily in India, Pakistan,
> Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka -- see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES table
> - Indo-Aryan adjective
>>> What's missing from these dictionary definitions?
>> What is it that the jews who control our press and airwaves don't want us
to
> know about Aryans?
>> Iranians and Afghanis are Aryans.
>> Why do the jews not want the American people to know that Iranians and
> Afghanis are Aryans. Why is it that the jews in the US demonize the mere
> term "Aryan"? What is it about jews that they go postal when someone
merely
> mentions the word "Aryan"? What is it that set off shallow dunce? Why
did
> shallow dunce accuse us of being "Aryans"? So that she could then have a
> target to shoot at?
>> I met many people in Tehran who're whiter than White Americans. Many of
> them look identical in appearance to the White Race of the US. It's
obvious
> that we have a common ancestor, and that this common ancestor just could
not
> have lived that long ago.
>> Not one single jew in the world comes even close in appearance to either
the
> Aryans of Iran or the Aryans of the US. They're all obvious freaks of
> nature.
>> Why do the jews not want us to know about this?
>> Because they know that Americans wouldn't go along with their "wars on
> terrorism" if they knew that the targets of OUR terrorism were fellow
> Aryans.
>> To justify this "war on terrorists", the jews in the US have used all
kinds
> of tricks to make the American people think that we're dealing with a
bunch
> of mad dog Muslims, when the simple fact is that WE are the mad dogs for
> going along with and supporting these infinitely STUPID jews. In almost a
> year and a half in Muslim countries, I never met even one Muslim who
wasn't
> a perfect gentleman, which is something I can say about NO jew I ever met.
> Our jewsmedia images of Tehran are exactly the opposite of what I
witnessed
> personally, and they're intentionally misleading.
>> Do jews deserve our disrespect for this? Of course they do. Do they
> deserve to be shipped out of the country for it? Of course they do. Does
> this mean that we "hate" the jews? I personally have jewish "friends" in
> many parts of the world, including Russia--and for their sake, they all
need
> to finally comprehend that it's way past time for them to move on.
>> John Knight
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:7DNb9.30$Lo4.22984 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > Dear Shadow Dancer,
> >
> > Is this really an Aryan Nation issue here?
> >
> > Consider that black men between 18 and 30 years of age have the highest
> > murder rate in the USA, either the highest or second highest
incarceration
> > rate, and near the highest non-lethal crime rate in the USA. Consider
> that
> > black men are considerably less "educable" than black women, who
comprise
> a
> > much higher percentage of the work force than black men. Yet, these
> > feminist laws on the books are written ostensibly to protect blacks.
> >
> > Who really hurts here, young black boys who have no positive male role
> model
> > at all, or whiteys who pay dearly for their funerals or incarceration?
> >
> > EVERYBODY hurts here because of feminist legal drivel. Even Asian
> Americans
> > hurt, because they end up taking up the slack for the blacks AND (often)
> the
> > whites, because of education, brain power, and work motivation issues.
> >
> > Women hurt the most because their men are removed from the home by force
> or
> > by rule of law. I pray to God that you'll rue the day you say that
> marriage
> > is outdated or outmoded. Women cannot even protect themselves from the
> > abuses of other women, and at times require men to rescue them from that
> > abuse. I pray to God that you'll rue the day you say men should be
> removed
> > from sight and summarily murdered. Whether black, white, Native
American,
> > Asian, Middle Eastern, or Pacific Islander, you women need us men as
much
> as
> > we men need you women. When you completely lose our protective force,
> which
> > protects you from intruders AND yourselves, you will truly rue the day
you
> > lost your men, no matter what race. You will even rue the day you were
> > born, and will wish you died as a child.
> >
> > This is neither an Aryan issue, nor a Neo-Nazi issue, nor a black or
white
> > or red or green or purple or blue issue. Race has NOTHING to do with
how
> > badly the FAMILY overall has been DESTROYED by the feminazis of the 20th
> > century. The Holy Bible says that God created man and woman, that a man
> > shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and that they
> > should be fruitful and multiply in a monogamous non-adulterous
> relationship.
> > Feminism turns that whole Godly principle on its ear, and then begs the
> > question why so many women end up diseased, beaten, brutally murdered,
and
> > maimed.
> >
> > Race has nothing to do with our fight. The feminism that created the
> entire
> > race issue has everything to do with our fight to create and preserve
the
> > husband and father as the leader of the home, so our sons and daughters
> have
> > positive male and female role models in two-parent homes.
> >
> > Is that too much to ask, for members of any race?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Richard C. August
> >
> > "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:IP9b9.18123$Ic7.1554265 at news2.west.cox.net...> > >
> > > "Insomniac" <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote in message
> > > news:akipuk$1gv84f$1 at ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...> > > > "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:kxYa9.15294$Ic7.1436138 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > "Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:0JRa9.78471$%v4.3260851 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...> > > > > >
> > > > > > "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:vlPa9.14084$Ic7.1317648 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Joseph A Nagy Jr" <pagan_prince at charter.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:3D6AD985.5090703 at charter.net...> > > > > > > > Joseph A Nagy Jr wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> OR, we could simply live by the Holy Bible as the
> > Constitution
> > > > of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>> Christian nation proclaims:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The Constitution of this not-Christian-nation proclaims
no
> > such
> > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [Bible quotes without ANY Constitutional quotes deleted
as
> > > > > irrelevant
> > > > > > > > >> to the claim].
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> lojbab
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah lets just forget this idiot. I've posted twice proof
that
> > > > prayer
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > not banned from public school, yet him and Mr. August
still
> > > > contend
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My point being that they will ignore everything we say, no
> > matter
> > > > how
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > proof to the contrary.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just because two morons meet on a bus and agree that the moon
is
> > > made
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Swiss cheese doesn't mean that the moon is made of Swiss
cheese.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just because a feminazi and a "liberal" agree with each other
> that
> > > > > school
> > > > > > > prayer was never banned doesn't mean that school prayer was
> never
> > > > > banned:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1962: Engel v. Vitale. The Court ruled that public
> > > > > > > school officials could not require pupils to recite a slate-
> > > > > > > composed prayer at the start of each school day, even if the
> > > > > > > prayer was nondenominational and pupils who so desired
> > > > > > > could be excused from reciting it, because such official
> > > > > > > state sanction of religious unerances was an unconsitu-
> > > > > > > tional attempt to establish religion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This was called "BANNING SCHOOL PRAYER".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. this was called banning the government regulation of prayer.
> It
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > say anything about the individual's freedom to pray; only the
> > > authority
> > > > of
> > > > > > School officials to tell people whether they can pray or not. Do
> you
> > > > ever
> > > > > > actually read any of the crap you post. half the time you
disprove
> > > your
> > > > > own
> > > > > > arguements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is like the jews who say, when they spray bullets at
> Palestinian
> > > > > children, "look, they WANTED to die--if they didn't want to die,
> they
> > > > would
> > > > > have dodged the bullets".
> > > > >
> > > > > The "supreme" court banned a practice which had been PROTECTED
under
> > the
> > > > US
> > > > > Constitution and the First Amendment for almost two centuries,
just
> as
> > > our
> > > > > Christian Founding Forefathers desired, and BANNED it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What was that practice? Why, spoken Christian prayer in public
> > schools,
> > > > of
> > > > > course. What the court did was exactly 180 degrees the reverse of
> > what
> > > > our
> > > > > Christian Founding Forefathers envisioned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, what changed in the US Constitution, Joe? Nothing. Did the
> > people
> > > > > rise up in arms and demand that their children be prohibited from
> > saying
> > > a
> > > > > simple spoken CHRISTIAN prayer in their "public school"
classrooms?
> > > Why,
> > > > > no. The only thing that changed is that we permitted MORON jews
to
> > > "sit"
> > > > on
> > > > > the "supreme" court.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was that a good idea? No. Was it a popular idea? No, to this
day,
> > > more
> > > > > than two thirds of Americans OPPOSE this ruling
> > > > > http://christianparty.net/schoolprayer.htm> > > > >
> > > > > You can weasel word all you want--but it won't change a single
fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Knight
> > > >
> > > > Read your own words.
> > > >
> > > > You can weasel word all you awnt - but Christian children in schools
> > > across
> > > > the country will continue to pray and not be bothered about it.
> > > >
> > > > However, their teachers are forbidden by law to make such prayer
> > mandatory
> > > > for *everyone*.
> > > >
> > > > That's the part that "gets" you, isn't it? You'd rather run a
Fourth
> > > Reich
> > > > where all children wore brown shirts and recited "Christian" prayers
> > just
> > > as
> > > > you proscribed.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's truly awesome to envision what a gigantic vacuum must exist where
> > those
> > > missing 3 1/2 billion brain cells are supposed to be.
> > >
> > > You can't even accurately paraphrase the simplest statement,
understand
> > the
> > > simplest point, nor comprehend the simplest poll. No wonder Gallup
gets
> > > away so often with making a verbal statement which 100% contradicts
the
> > data
> > > in its own statistics.
> > >
> > > Here's the direct quote from the Gallup Poll:
> > > ==================================
> > > Next I'm going to read a variety of proposals concerning religion and
> > public
> > > schools. For each one, please tell me whether you would generally
favor
> or
> > > oppose it. First, ... . Next, ... . [RANDOM ORDER]
> > >
> > > E. Allowing daily prayer to be spoken in the classroom
> > >
> > > Favor 70%
> > > Oppose 28
> > > No opinion 2
> > > ==================================
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell us what you believe this means, shallow dunce. Demonstrate what
it
> > is
> > > about women's intelligence that makes you think women are more
> intelligent
> > > than men. Explain how this fits in to your above statements.
> > >
> > > And while you're at it, would you mind clarifying the difference
between
> > > "hate" and "despise" once again?
> > >
> > > > Now...I dunno JK well enough to hate him. I despise his apparent
> "Aryan
> > > > agenda" and won't condone it in the least but despising it is not
> > > > immediately equatable to "hate".
> > >
> > >
> > > John Knight
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>>
