ANSWERS TO AND FROM READERS OF THE LASHA DARKMOON SITE ON THE SHOOTING AND DROWNING OF CRIMINAL INVADERS
March 18, 2016
Illustrated: click here
(102 pages of blah-blah with lie headline, boiled down to 7 pages)
Many thanks to Lasha Darkmoon anyway for the nice plug by way of compensation, including my interview with Ernst Zündel.
18 March 2016
[First, let's start with what I really said, and then move on to what everybody says I said, in response to an Amrem article republished on the Lasha Darkmoon site:
CARLOS PORTER: Machine-gun them all, and if that doesn’t work, how about napalm or poison gas? What the hell do we have an army for? Not to mention an Air Force? If you kill enough of them, the rest will quit coming and to hell with them. It wouldn’t even take very many, because they are beggars, cowards. Snivelling, whining, cry-babies. So it wouldn’t even take a lot of killing.
They’ve had everything they wanted for 60 years. They wanted us to get out of our colonies and just hand them over; we did. They wrecked them, so now they want to move here. The results are already just the same. Let them rot in the mess they created.
Machine-gun them on the beaches, drown them at sea, and starve them on land. What did we go to Vietnam for? We’ve got the hardware. All just sitting there, doing nothing.
Deportation won’t work. Put them in camps in the desert or shoot them. There’s no other way. Fill out the paper work later. -C.P.
[Omission of amateur psychoanalyzing and moralizing by Darkmoon and some Dutch retard]
ME ... if you’re going to quote me, please do so correctly, stop putting words in my mouth, and leave out your fake psychoanalyzing and incorrect personal history.
For example, I did not “relocate to Europe with my wife and children”, “a few years ago”, etc. as you should well know.
I have not used the words “merciless”, “extermination”, or “genocide”.
I have pointed out that what I advocate could be done with probably no more than a few hundred or possibly a few thousand deaths. The key word is “enough”.
How much is “enough”? There’s only one way to find out.
The Watts Riots, for example: was that “merciless” “extermination” or “genocide”? The cops were too gentle and that didn’t work, so they called out the National Guard, who shot at everything that moved. That was legal.
Is that “genocide”? Well…if so… frankly Scarlett, I don’t give a damn. You can play with words all you want.
The entire article from Amrem [entitled White Genocide: The Mass Rape and Murder of the European People) is virtually an incitement to genocide.
So "whom" do you think you are kidding?
I also said: “One if by land, two if by sea, but no violence. Brilliant!” -C.P.
Quote that, too. If that’s your view of history, you’re living in a dream world.
No hard feelings.
[Copious blah-blah, followed by the following reluctant admission that I am right [!] (i.e., that this whole paroxysm of indignation is just a monumental display of hypocrisy)]:
"Asylum-seekers" burning bright
In the bomb-fires of the night,
When they're toasted really well
Blast them off to Izra-hell.
THEM: (I QUOTE):
Carlos Porter’s prescription is more extreme.
He sees the threat facing Europe—its ongoing invasion by the countless hordes of the Third World—and he has decided not to pull his punches or mince his words.“Shoot them,” he advises bluntly. “Destroy them before they destroy Europe".
Is this incitement to violence? Criminal hate speech? For argument’s sake, let’s assume it is. So what is the politically correct alternative? Throw Carlos Porter in prison? Muzzle all political dissidents? Censor free speech? And then throw open the gates of Europe to another 100 million economic migrants pretending to be desperate refugees?
Is that your solution, Frau Merkel?
The good ship Titanic is sinking.
Europe is the Titanic as it sinks beneath the waves... [emphasis added; remember, this is them talking! - C.P.]
I absolutely agree with him if he says that these illegal intruders should be put in concentration camps until deportation. Should deportation not be possible then they can remain there for the rest of their lives.
In the article you [Darkmoon and her mentally challenged Dutchman] deliberately and repeatedly use words like ‘genocide’ and ‘extermination’ when those words are totally inappropriate here. Keeping violent intruders out who will stop at nothing to get what they want makes sense, no?
Now, I cannot speak for Mr Porter, but my guess is that he, like me, would have the common decency of spreading the word that the party is OVER and that no one, NO ONE, will be admitted in Europe any more.
If after that these criminals still will try their luck it is at their own risk. Is that so hard to understand all of a sudden? I’ve already made the comparison with violent trespassers entering a house. Would shooting them qualify as "extermination"or "genocide"? Because I believe there’s something seriously wrong with anyone who thinks that.
STILL MORE AGREEMENT:
“If that isn’t mass extermination, what is it?”
It is defending your home against a criminal element.
If a boatload of Libyans, who left Tripoli intending to go to Tubruq developed engine problems, drifted into Italian waters, beached on Sicily, then requested help to get them to Tubruq, were shot, it would be an unnecessary mass killing, but not extermination.
A mass extermination of Libyans, would be the deliberate targeting of that boat, and any other boat full of Libyans being blown up in Libyan waters, along with indiscriminate Dresden-like bombing of all of Libya.
Since the invaders are coming from dozens of countries across Asia and Africa, where they are not in danger, there is no comparison.
There are a billion non-Whites wanting to get into Europe. Letting them in would be a mass extermination of Europeans.
AGREEMENT (from a person of partially Chinese extraction):
...[this] reminds me of Confucius’ “There is no survival without courage.”
Indeed, the old sage of China, were he alive today, would applaud you and Mr. Porter.
In Porter’s case, he is talking self-defense.
The USA, Europe, Australia, Canada and all white nations are under attack. The white people of the world are being purposely destroyed. Killing our attackers (whether kings or pawns) is not “genocide”, rather, it is self defense. The only genocide that is being practiced is the present genocide against the white race and the destruction of white, Christian civilization. And who’s behind it? Who are the movers and shakers, the promoters and financiers of this genocide against us?…. Jew know who, the ancient enemy.
You’re exactly right and justified in your statements, Carlos Porter.
The White world has become feminized, Mr. Porter. Our forbears knew better.
Did millions die for nothing fighting Muslim invaders for over 1200 years? Were the brutal Barbary Coast pirates not enough to demonstrate the disdain the non-Europeans have for our women?
INTERRUPTION BY AN IDIOT, reportedly of Dutch extraction (what else?):
“…not mowing down desperate victims.."
ME: They are not “desperate victims” and you know it. Their illegal boat tickets cost thousands of euros, probably payable in gold, at least in the Arab countries, to the various national Mafias, after destroying dozens of successful, prosperous colonial societies.
Most of the Vietnamese "boat people" were ethnic-Chinese. They paid $2,000 in gold to the Communist government, and were issued travel documents which expired on the 1st of January of the following year and were not valid for return to Viet Nam. In Communist Czechoslovakia, you paid a year's wages to the Communist government and were issued a similar document, an ordinary-looking Czech passport bearing a special stamp (a capital "K") meaning it was not valid for return to Czechoslovakia. Haiti, under the Duvalier regime, issued similar documents (I believe, with a capital "H"). Such documents are not recognized as "passports" under international law. The definition of a "passport" under international law is "a travel document valid for return to the country of origin". Holders of such documents are de facto stateless and cannot be deported! Nor can people whose country of origin refuses to recognise them as nationals, or persons whose nationality is disputed or unknown. You can jail them, shoot them, put them in camps, but you can't deport them. Don't think you can get rid of them just by telling them to leave, even if they have travel documents -- which most of them won't, or they'll carry forgeries.
(Source of information: Official State Department document on the validity of passports obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in the 1980s. Exact references available on request. The same document tells us, for example, that passports issued by the Batista regime in Cuba are not to be accepted, nor those issued by the secessionist province of Katanga in the 60s, the only civilized, peaceful and anti-Communist province in the country! Castro passports are glatt kosher.)
Why should we even care about them? They are criminals by definition. What about all the people who have spent 5 or 10 years trying to emigrate to our countries legally? With health checks, background checks, bureaucracy, years of waiting. - C.P.
ANOTHER IDIOT (in this case a Jew):
“…Porter is incompetent….”
ME: You have, of course, forgotten the “independence” of the Belgian Congo in 1960, and many dozens of similar examples. Nothing has changed since 1960. -C.P. (see also film "Africa Addio" - here, in original Italian with Spanish subtitles. This is full-length, they left out a few scenes in other versions - Most of the commercial versions are only about 90 minutes and are therefore 30 minutes shorter. I like the last half, about Zanzibar, the Congo and so on, starting at 1 hr 44 minutes. Also known as "Africa Blood and Guts").
For English version, 10 minutes shorter, click here.
See also here, bottom half of page, reproduction of newspaper article, "UN Expert: Rape Rampant in Congo".
Murder, torture, terror and mass-rape have been the rule, not the exception, all over Africa, and everywhere else -- ever since the white man said, "OK, you're equal to us".
Well, I say, you can't have it both ways.
They're "equal to us", but they're never responsible for anything they do???
They're "equal to us", but they're perpetual charity cases???
They're "equal to us", but they wreck everything you give them???
And now they want more???
QUOTE FROM DONALD TRUMP:
... “Without borders, you have no country” …..Donald Trump
"...the Jews are to blame…”
ME: OK, but we’re not looking at 10 million or billion Jews in boats, are we? If your house is on fire do you put out the fire first, or look for the arsonist while your house burns down? -C.P.
CAUTIOUS AGREEMENT, WITH AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION:
I think you guys are being a little dramatic. Porter was obviously just giving his opinion on what government policy on the invading hordes should be. That’s a far cry from inciting average people to violence. What do you think a rational policy would be, ask them to leave nicely?
Do I condone Carlos’ views?
The simple answer is "yes", because I’m looking through the BS and the political correctness.
When I was young, a good friend, mentor in fact upon starting a career as a doorman, said to me the following prophetic words “it’s far easier keeping trouble out than GETTING it out”. And his words rang true.
Once these migrants come into Europe the shit will hit the fan. End of.
Do you think it would be alright to shoot when they have kicked in the front door and are climbing in the windows while the children are sleeping upstairs? Maybe I should welcome them and offer a hot beverage instead? Should I call 9-11? I’m confused; ah, I know: I will pray.
FRED LEUCHTER (a choir boy who became an executioner-by-proxy but remains a choir boy at heart):
Are you kidding? That’s much too drastic. You will give us all a bad name!
YOU must be joking.
Please note that every sentence I wrote refers to action to be taken legally by the military. Since when is it a crime to advocate a change in government policy?
I’m not in charge of the Army, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, police and what have you. I defy you, or anyone else, to find one act of illegality advocated by myself in my comments here.
I have not used the words “merciless”, “extermination”, or “genocide”, so don’t give me that. I have said it could be done with very little killing.
The Problem is, everybody knows that what I’m saying is the truth, but most people just won’t admit it.
Better be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Many good men have been killed as a result of forgetting that one very simple little fact, as you should well know.
With all due respect. In any case, the present situation has nothing to do with historical revisionism, and is simply an immediate matter of life and death. Death is permanent. Or haven’t you noticed? -C.P.
INTERRUPTION FROM AN IDIOT:
“…Mr. Porter has provided our enemies with a splendid argument against us…”
ME: Only when it is distorted by people like you.
Apart from you I count 17 people so far who understand the plain English meaning of what I said.
Many thanks. Some people are still sane.
Greetings to Fred Leuchter [whose comment appears above] . When he participated in an execution, was he a “murderer”? He was if you think capital punishment is “murder”. I do not think so.
I am not interesting in all these word games. I said what I said, and my meaning is clear. -C.P.
CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION:
ME: There is another misconception, one of many. We are told the Jews have enabled all of this. True. But the Jews are already here. We are not being invaded by millions of Jews.
We are being invaded by millions, soon to be billions — 6, 8, 10, 12, the sky is the limit — of Africans, Moslems and South Americans, not to mention the Chinese, Pakistanis and Hindus. If we concentrate on the Jews alone we will be swamped in a year.
So we enforce the laws that are on the books right now, against illegal immigration, and worry about the Jews later (five minutes afterwards). How’s that? -C.P.
INTERRUPTION BY ANOTHER IDIOT (the Dutchman again):
“You don’t have to machine-gun third world invaders, who are unarmed after all. You can handle them like the riot police does a demonstrating crowd. Only in extreme cases fire-arms are used. Mostly water cannons, batons or pepper spray are sufficient.”
ME: So why is this not done? Because preventing them from landing would result in their deaths at sea. So what’s the difference? By some curious coincidence, we’ve got a lot more naval vessels equipped with machine guns than we do with pepper spray. I wonder why that is? -C.P.
MORE PETTY-FOGGING FROM OUR LEGALLY-TRAINED MICROCEPHALIC ENDOMORPH:
“BTW, whether an action by a government is 'legal' or not doesn’t make it necessary moral. Many governments have engaged in crimes, even though they declared them 'legal'.
ME: What I advocate would have been considered standard course of procedure at any time in the past. We are dealing with rioters. Read them the riot act, tell them to disperse, then start shooting. I am sad to see that the spirochete has finally reached your brain. Ora pro nobis.
There is also such a thing as national waters. If they want to float around on the open sea forever, let them. -C.P.
“…If we do as Carlos states, we stop the inevitable demolition of our lands, but bring the wrath of the rest of the world, under Jewish control upon our heads..”
ME: What do we care about the “wrath of the rest of the world”, who can do simply nothing except float to us on rafts?
As for the Jews and Chinese, we can repudiate our debts to them any time we want. This has already been done hundreds of times, throughout history: see This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth M. Rogoff. We can also repudiate our support to Israel and their whole financial system. -C.P.
“… I don’t think Carlos Porter is serious, surely it’s a spoof….”
ME: You’re crazy. With all due apologies. -C.P.
"...they're unarmed, after all..."
ME: A person does not need to be “armed” to constitute a threat. Ever see one of the old Clint Eastwood movies? Whenever he feels threatened, he attacks first, without warning. But he’s always got a good reason to feel threatened! “Provocation” is another common defense to a charge of murder, assault, etc. -C.P.
[MORE PETTY-FOGGING FROM OUR LEGAL EXPERT]
"...language, no matter how provocative, does not justify a battery.” It goes on to state that “language may not be used to incite combative battery.” …
ME: One of my lawyers had a client who was holding a hammer for some reason, he was working, he didn’t pick it up to threaten anybody with it. In comes some big “karate expert” who starts a big dispute with him, goes down into a karate position, the guy with the hammer said he “felt threatened”, so he conked the big “karate expert” on the head with it, and knocked him out. He was accused of “assault with a deadly weapon”, or some crap, but he won the case. It was practically thrown out of court.
“Provocation” and/or “feeling threatened” are a defense whether you like it or not. You might not win, but it’s a defense. If the jury or judge decides, “hell, anybody would have reacted the way he did”, you’ll probably get off, or get a reduced sentence — unless you’re white, of course. -C.P.
- C.P., 30 JUNE 2016
"Let the storm burst".
-- Oom Paul Kruger
P.S. See also: In Honour of Antonios Plyntzanopoulos - Chimp-Out on the High Seas NEW
See also: More on the Destruction of South Africa
Faggot Dictatorship in Sweden (after all, really, it's the same problem)
Marching Looting Nigger blog
On the lighter side, see Niggerology
Note on photographs of decapitated heads in Angola
Update on allegation of amputated hands in the Congo