On a whim, I graj-agated over to the old Stand77 forum last night and was browsing some threads when I saw that you recommended Tom "Jimmy Bag O' Donuts" Chittim's Web site. As far as I'm concerned, the man is an unqualified racist.

I didn't get involved in the threads below about immigration because (as usual) I straddle the fence and stand in the middle. (Do keep in mind that people who do that usually get run over; I have the tread marks to prove it.)

Of course I'm opposed to illegal (or even unrestricted) immigration. Yes, I believe that BOTH political parties are taking a soft line on tightening the borders because BOTH parties are hoping to court (illegal) votes.

But I flatly disagree with Chittum's dire vision of the future. I think his logic falls to pieces on one important factoid: the reason why people try to come to this country from Mexico is because Mexico's economy sucks. Why in the world would these people then want to turn around and change the United States into Mexico II?

It doesn't make sense, man.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Answers

Correctomundo. Everywhere around the world people want what we go. And the magic of Disney and McDonald's infects them.

The special sauce on a big Mac is not salsa.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

CPR,

And I should have added this paragraph: the Mexicans (and hispanics in general) whom I've met have been hard-working, decent and honest people. I'm glad to have 'em as neighbors. The population of Colorado is about 20% hispanic, from what I read while I was there. It's just not a big deal to the locals, not even to the 12th-generation Plank Owners who founded the place. Who cares; they work and pay taxes, and have great food besides. :)

If you want to hear some inspired latino-flavored cursing, ask them if they'd like to establish "Aztlan" in Colorado ...

I'm not in favor of unrestricted immigration (the old "lifeboat" thingie). But Mexicans should get a fair share of the pie.

Bring 'em on. :)

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

One other thought.

I've tried (honestly, squinting first one eye and then the other) to make sense of Chittum's fevered rant, and I figured out (part of) what he's doing. He's taking the statements of a few radicals (there will always be those) and assuming that they represent the beliefs of the majority.

By his (il)logic, all blacks should be judged by what a few Black Panther and Nation of Islam types say. (And yeah, he appears to believe THAT, too.)

(Like I said, he's just a plain-old racist.)

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

"a fair share of the pie."

That's been our nation's promise for a long, long time and for damned good reason. A difference now is that the pie is being more and more cooked by taxes. There's lots of talk about illegals paying taxes but it doesn't measure up to "a fair share of the pie". What we've been facing isn't a potato famine deal or a post '98 depression deal or a post WW1 deal. There ain't no Ellis Island in San Ysidro.

How bout a link to that Stand77 forum?

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Of course I'm opposed to illegal (or even unrestricted) immigration. Yes, I believe that BOTH political parties are taking a soft line on tightening the borders because BOTH parties are hoping to court (illegal) votes.

But I flatly disagree with Chittum's dire vision of the future. I think his logic falls to pieces on one important factoid: the reason why people try to come to this country from Mexico is because Mexico's economy sucks. Why in the world would these people then want to turn around and change the United States into Mexico II?

It doesn't make sense, man.

Unfortunately any real attempt at enlightening you will result in the tired old story of Doc bashing, so I will attempt to resist the urge and be brief.

Tom Chittum's link(currently, and predictably dead, the time is late) is offered because Tom does not pussy foot around. He brings a viewpoint so stark, yet so profoundly accurate it has to be at least looked at. You did, and concluded what they want you to conclude, that he is a simple racist. No biggy, your right even if wrong.

I will also say if you think the Illegal Mexican Pardon is about gaining votes, you are a very good little minion indeed. Coupled with your belief that these Illegals would never think of turning the good- olde USoA into Tijuana, there is nothing I can share that is going to push the crud from your noodle.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

link for Carlos

Course Chittum's link appears to be down. Strange, many links to info like he offers are as well dropping like flys. "There ought be limits to Freedom" and all. Hell they killed the Internet by closing the pipes. Can't have free people being free and independent can we if the plan is to create one big fat global community of saps, so the net had to be netted.

BTW, for any interested, Chittum's basic contention is that the current conditions are beyond repair. That we must completely do away with what is, and start over again.

While I do not agree with everything Chittum, or anybody for that matter, I do agree the game is over.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Doc,

The *reason* why I was surprised is because I know, for a fact, that YOU are *not* a racist. Stephen's not engaging in Doc-bashing.

I was just surprised that you appeared to endorse Chittum because he *is* a racist. At one time he even linked to that horribly offensive "nigwatch" page, and he frequently links to white extremist sites. That's why I don't link to him from my site, even though he was nominally on "my side" during the Y2K debate.

(I'm also surprised that you're buying into all that "NWO" crap, but hey; life's full of surprises. So be it.)

Has nothing to do with free speech, either. Certainly Chittum has a right to express his viewpoint and I would be the first to defend his *right* to have a Web site, no matter how offensive. But, personally, I'm not going to endorse his racism.

I would imagine, though, that his site is down for lack of interest and funding. Chittum himself has indicated in the past that he gets almost no support (which is why he was selling that useless "Lotto program" for a while).

His views, like most of those of the "NWO" nuts, are "fringe" at best and are not supported by any rational examination of the evidence. Guilt By Association is worthless when dealing with people of power because they're going to know each other. They do business with one another (often while holding their noses) because they HAVE to.

Doesn't mean they always agree with each other and it certainly doesn't mean that they support each other.

And while we're at it ... if Dubya is such an NWO clone, how could he possibly go against Kyoto? Whether Kyoto is good or bad isn't the point; the point is, his resistance is at least SOME proof of independence of action, is it not? :)

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

The game isn't over, Doc.

Things have always been changing in this country from the very beginning. This is just another change. Changes are always bad for some people. We can't stop changing or we risk the same political and economic stagnation that communism brought to the Soviet Bloc and China. Technology is driving the changes, and changing the concept of borders and nations and governments is inevitable.

We're talking about making the border with Canada basically transparent from a business standpoint. We're going to have to do that with Mexico.

BTW, I'm a descendant of people who survived devastating changes in their way of life "for the greater good". We got hurt before, we may get hurt again, and yet my life now is far better than it would have been had the original changes that affected my ancestors not been made. If my line survives, a hundred years from now my descendants may be living in wonderful times.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Stephen what you need to understand is this NWO is about ending the United States of America as it was/is known.

Bush represents Multi-National Capitalists. There are Socialist/Communist factions as well amongst the Globalist movement. When one in the US talks about Liberals and Conservatives, this is what is really being discussed, disagreements between Globalists. Kyoto is classic disagreement between Globalists of different economic-social philosophies.

If one does not view "Politics" from a Global perspective, you will not understand. You will not understand why a Conservative called GW bares little if any resemblance to Conservatives of but a generation ago. GW is no Barry Goldwater. I would submit GW is far left of even a JFK. GW Bush is not interested in what an American wants or even has to say, why should he? He does not represent US anyway. Once fully understood, little of what he does is any surprise.

As to your claim Poole that "any rational investigation of the evidence" will show NWO believers to be but silly nutcases, I can only laugh. On the Illegal Mexican issue I can flat-out tell 110% you are completely CLUELESS. When I tell you I lived the scenario for 30 years as a Southern Californian, I am not doing so for fun. I KNOW better than you, K? If you think California is the way it is because of BarbaraS and JaneF, then it is YOU who is the nutcase.

Want to know where America is heading? CALIFORNIA. A 2 class society where Freedom is defined by how much money you got.

Want to know what all the ELECTRICITY business regards California is REALLY about? It is a battleground amongst Globalists. It is about the Capitalist types like GW attempting to teach their opponent "liberal" Globalists a lesson. Caught in the shuffle is the average American just wanting a fair shake. The average California who does not understand why his Federal Government telling him to fuck off in a crisis. A person who does not understand the Globalsit game and still thinks things legit, they are not close.

America is done. Our Constitution is so much babble to a Globalist. It will not only be avoided in setting and implementing their policies, but it will be used whenever it helps the cause.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Doc:

Unfortunately any real attempt at enlightening you will result in the tired old story of Doc bashing, so I will attempt to resist the urge and be brief.

Enlighten me. You are sounding an awful lot like Invar. After many years of life, I have found that folks who Know that they have the only answer to a question are usually wrong. IMHO. You should read some of Patrick's stuff on TB2000. You fit the pattern. Almost an Abbey.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Reality check, Doctor: Nobody is out to get you, other than maybe any creditors, ex-wives, etc., that you may have accumulated. Just because you see a lot of crazy conspiracy stuff in the movies and on the Internet, does not make it true.

Have a good day.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Doc,

I'd like to be enlightened, too. Give me some facts.

And in this case, I was specifically disagreeing with Tom Chittum's beliefs and rants, beginning with his offensive racism and including his ludicrous contention that all of the Mexicans in California and New Mexico will one day rise up and declare the "State of Aztlan."

By the way, Chittum's site is back on line. You alluded to a possible conspiracy above when you stated that his site was down.

I don't want to argue, I just want to find one person who actually explains all of this NWO stuff in a way that actually makes sense. I suppose you've made a step in that direction by acknowledging that there are "liberal" and "conservative" NWO'ers, but that raises more questions than it answers.

And if Bush is so "liberal," why did he propose things like the Faith Based Initiatives, of which you (loudly!) complained?

You're just not making sense. That's not a bash, it's an honest request for information.

I have really been surprised online from time to time. The reaction of many of those whom I thought were friends to my support of Bush in the election was one BIG surprise. Steve Heller being a doomer was a big surprise (I really, truly thought he knew better).

But you being an NWO conspiracist? I have to say, that takes the cake.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Stephen, you refer to Doc as an "NWO conspiracist". As one who is interested in nomenclature, I ask Doc if there is a positive name for folks who worship at your church? Surely you do not want others to define you as a "conspiracist" or an "anti"-whatever.

So do you have a name for your POV?. If not, I recommend that you guys hire a PR firm and come up with something positive and sexy. Don't let your political opponents define you.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Lars,

I don't know WHAT to call it.

Give me a better term and I'll use it.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Stephen--

I don't know what to call it either. I was asking Doc if people with his views have a unifying name for themselves. Maybe they don't or maybe they call themselves some kind of "_____ists".

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Doc, whatever business elements might promote a NWO they'll never pull it off. Talk about trying to herd cats!

As for the Mexican migration you're absolutely right. That game is over. Still think Bush is playing Fox off and doubt he or any president soon will take credit for or attempt to explain Fox's "open border" plea as being a good idea. Figure Fox will be around as a force long after Jr is back home BBQ'in. Still, that game is over and Mexico/US will have an indecipherable border within our lifetime.

Then there's the "racist" stuff that gets alot of play around here. For those that enjoy tossing that term consider having 3 million illegal, undereducated, unskilled Norwegians sucking up your state's ability to educate its young. Being a Fin/Swede/German mix I never liked them Norwegians anyway.

Thanks for the link doc. Will check it out now.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Carlos,

As for the Mexican migration you're absolutely right. That game is over ... Mexico/US will have an indecipherable border within our lifetime.

This is a complex thing.

In truth, the border has been indecipherable for some time and as far as THAT goes, we don't put guard towers and barbed wire on our border with Canada, so why should we do that to Mexico?

It's very difficult to explain why you'd support the one, and not the other, without being charged a "racist."

Just for the record, NAFTA wasn't about opening borders, it was about using free trade to help improve economic conditions throughout North America -- Mexico included. And in fact, one of the "hidden" motives WAS the illegal immigration problem: the hope was that, if we could improve things in Mexico, fewer Mexicans would WANT to come to the USA in the first place.

Again, compare to Canada: Canadians don't flock into the USA to live and work illegally because they've got decent living conditions and a good economy. Mexico has neither.

Again, where I disagreed with Doc was the idea that this is all due to some Globalist conspiracy. That's pure nonsense. To say that there's a problem with illegal aliens receiving entitlements and choking the school system is one thing; to make the (il)logical leap to blaming this on Globalism is something worse than silly.

Why? Because before we can fix the problem, we have to correctly identify its cause. If we have a false assumption of what's causing it, we'll NEVER fix it.

And the fact is, we could nuke the next Bilderberger conference and kill every globalist at the UN tomorrow at 9AM. And you know what?

You'd still have Mexicans trying to get into this country BECAUSE THEY'RE HUNGRY.

Solve the ROOT problem and you solve the WHOLE problem. But as long as you keep waving wooden swords at phantoms, the problem will NEVER get solved.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

"the problem"?

Stephen you rarely disappoint but me thinks that for some reason this subjuct has left you either too berift of information and too long on philosophy.

You bring up the racist thing again as though you can't understand what I wrote. Saddened here. There's nothing racist about a crumbling school system that crumbles for hispanics, asians & anglos in the same measure. They're all OUR kids here and they're getting cheated more and more every day out of the chance to live the life you and I enjoy. Something's wrong there. Your turn to pick a demon. I'll comment.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

If some gather to plot strategy, they CONSPIRE, no?

Here is the position, philosophy, and agenda of the leading bad boy organization using the topic at hand:::BORDER CONTROL

Sorry but I personally do not think it a swell idea to dissolve the United States into some global swap meet. Look, we have freaking LAWS. We are supposed to have a pile of elected officials SWORN to uphold the US Constitution and Laws, not the agenda of some intellectual deliquents. Who the hell do these people think they are?

Click on some of the other "areas", if you can stomach it. Bottom- line is this CFR is about doing away with the United States of America. Spin it all you want, that IS the agenda, and more than not, the agenda from dopes like Bill Clinton and GW Bush, both CFR members.

I do not care how you justify it, but ANYBODY in our government who is an active member and believer in the CFR crap is no friend of America. I hesitate to use the word Treasonist for fear I will be labeled worse than I have been here, but that is what these folks are.

Problem is simple Poole, it is Power in the hands of folks who think Globalism groovy. The arrogance is mind boggling. How do these dumbfucks think the USA is the place it is? by worshipping Globalism? And who are they to decide even starving people must somehow better themselves? who are they? Starvation is tragic, but who left and made them God? am I required to feed the world?

History is CLEAR, Nation building, Globalism is a FAILED approach. This does not then translate in opponents being Isolationists.

Change gears here with some evidence for Poole to consider. Here is the Bush Energy Proposal...http://www.whitehouse.gov/ene rgy/

Here is the Clinton Energy Proposal...http://www.hr.doe.gov/n epp/titlepg.html

Here is the CFR position paper(course they are just blowhards and nobody could possibly be listening to them as they say eyes- rolling)...http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Research/F- Policy/energy/energycfr.pdf

The CFR and Bush dumps start out with the PC lie, by saying there has been no plan. Hell their own freaking PLAN has been THE PLAN since Clinton1995 and before that even. Course it ain't working since it is bullshit, but what the hey who cares, right? Simply respin the turd to fit Bushies reign.

What you have are three boring essays about why the FREE MARKET is unable to work by forces locked in place so it cannot freaking work. Gee I wonder why we have such a CLOGGED Energy market? By design? could it be that? too freaking funny these freaks.

What do you make of the three links spewing the exact same dribble Poole? Even you have to admit Dubya is spewing utter LIES when he claims the USA has been without any policy for the last decade.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Research/F- Policy/energy/energycfr.pdf

Try that last one again...That be the CFR one that Clinton used and now Bush who claims it never existed, or did, it maybe was, but anyhow it sucked but it is as good as any so here it is again dorks (American People).

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Carlos,

Proof that we've failed to communicate.

I thought I *agreed* with you about illegals overtaxing the school system, health care, government entitlements, you name it.

Nor do I consider it "racist" to point out that *FACT*.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Americanpatrol.com

IMAGES FROM ATTACK ON AMERICANS, JULY 4, 2000

The same event this year

BTW, TK will be glad to know only LA Spanish TVstation Univision apparently showed the Aztlanians burning the US Flag. Course who owns Univision TK? Yep USA Networks and our old buddy Barry Diller, the good friend of Bill and Hillary.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Ha ppy Thoughts

Viva Jorge Bush!

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Doc,

Do remember that my original question was about why you should recommend Tom Chittum's drunken, racist screeds to your readers. I am STILL surprised about that.

The fact that Chittum was "right about Y2K" doesn't mean a thing to me. Hey, *I* was right about Y2K, too, and Stephen Poole says that Chittum flatly has his head CRAMMED up his anus.

(He's obviously not handling Mid-Life Crisis very well.)

As for your links above: I'm not going to argue with a True Believer, which is what you are on this subject. (The way that you gloss over Bush's rejection of Kyoto and his support for SDI alone proves that.)

I know from experience that arguing with a True Believer about NWO stuff is just as pointless as arguing with a tax protestor. Tax protestors read things and THINK they understand them (when they do not). They claim that certain government writings and court decisions support their position (when they do not).

You have done both here. I doubt that you've actually READ all 5 skazillion bytes of the first three documents that you linked to; had you done so, you would have seen that they DON'T help your position very much. Further, they are NOT rubber-stamp copies of one another, as you claim; there are signficant differences.

On Clinton and energy policy: sure, Clinton received recommendations and policy papers on energy. The problem is, he never implemented anything, preferring to sortof let energy freewheel without any substantive input from his administration. (The operative word is "substantive.")

So the statement that Clinton "had no energy policy" is correct.

Finally, I think your biggest mistake is confusing the global *economy* with global *government.* They are not the same (even granting Machiavelli's famous bromide).

Hey, I remember reading 10 years ago that the Japs were going to own a majority of the business property in this country by Y2K. It was one of the best-supported (with statistical trends) and cogent arguments that I'd ever read ... and, as I predicted at the time, it was FLAT BOGUS. WRONG.

And just for the record ... one reason why I voted for Bush is because I felt that HE would be FAR less likely to permit the "globalization" of *government* (as distinct from *business*) and sacrifice our sovereignty to the UN, which I despise.

Keep that in mind. If you're really serious about this and not just having a little fun on a boring off-day, remember that: I (correctly) see a substantial difference between the global *marketplace* and a global, "one world" (if you will) *government*.

Few things would please me more than for the USA to pull out of the UN and let that pack of squalling brats ooze back to their own countries. I'll go down to the docks and wave "bye-bye" as they disappear in the sunset.

We're talking about government philosophies here. I think that Bush is doing the best he can in a very complex world, one in which the money that you spend today could very easily have come from a vendor in Algeria selling pottery a few months ago. (That was most manifestly NOT the case in the 1700's and even the early 1800's.)

(But after the Civil War? That's something else you miss: the globalization of the economy has actually been occuring for over a century. As soon as the first steamship crossed the Atlantic, it became inevitable.)

With global markets, there aren't any perfect answers or choices. We CANNOT isolate our marketplace, not and remain prosperous. We CAN isolate our our military and defend our sovereignty and self-determination.

Bush did JUST that when he rejected Kyoto.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Still need a link to this Chittum site deal.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

http://www.civilwartwo.com/

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Later Poole was heard to say: And -- this is the most important thing to remember -- when government agencies (and their hired consulting groups) emit things, they generally do so to affect government funding. Since the Evil Russkies disassembled, the military and intelligence lobbies have been desperately looking for some way to increase funding.

The Evil Chinee just aren't much help, because they aren't a really huge threat. (A threat, yes; but not nearly as much as the Soviets were -- and even THAT was overplayed.) They figure, maybe they can get some bucks to combat an imagined threat from hackers ...

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=005wcu

Poole see is talking from a personal experience perspective here. Be nice if he could afford the same respect to others on this board when they too post based from personal experience.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Doc,

Why would you think I don't respect you? I do. I know you're not a racist and I don't think you're dumb. We primarily disagree on terminology; I am surprised that you'd even listen to Chittum and I'm surprised that you use the term "NWO," when to most NWO conspiracists, it has a much deeper (and darker) meaning than the one you're using.

And did I not say above that *illegal* aliens are a completely different matter from legal immigrants?

(And just for the record -- I don't think you believe in alien invasions, either. I was just having a little fun in that other thread; it WAS NOT directed at you, but at some of the NWO sites I'd seen online.)

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2001

I think you need to dig. I think you need to ALWAYS ask yourself the INTENT question behind everything and everybody.

What you have done Poole is share the OBVIOUS. You have also bashed the OBVIOUS stereotype of what a NWO freak is(apparently they cannot do that themselves). You have also assumed much about me which is totally wrong.

Where are the people saying the Globalists are a threat because they are STUPID? no place. The rhetoric is that these folks are very smart, very educated, and are implementing things to a big evil plan. A plan BTW, which is being redrawn constantly and is curiously taking CENTURIES to implement. Evidence alone these folks barely conscious and very dim indeed. They deny history and the plain fact, the world is the way it is not by accident, but for very solid reasons tested of significant periods of time.

What you have is intellectual ignorants and profiteers. The rest is NOISE, bs that will never work, and has not for anyone willing to look at history.

Tom Chittum is whacky. He is whacky because he brings a point-of-view to the table very unmainstream. He called Y2k what it was long before the "evidence" rolled in. He was able to do so because his view of things is so detached, thus I feel worthy of at least exploring. No kidding, absolutely one also has to understand mush of his "view" also so far-out to be of no value. Nobody is perfect and to seek balance one is best to consider all views. That is if one values balance. Course if you buy into Globalism, this would be the last thing you would value.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2001

Poole::::With global markets, there aren't any perfect answers or choices. We CANNOT isolate our marketplace, not and remain prosperous. We CAN isolate our our military and defend our sovereignty and self-determination.

First off there is no "Global Market". This is a buzzword, not reality. Reason there is no easy answers or solutions is there is no Global Market---get it? good.

AS to the second claim, I think one merely has to look at history to show this as well a Myth. The folks who cannot prosper are Globalists who demand controlled markets, cheap labor, and cheap resources. Globalist while spewing Uptopian goals rarely execute said and are the opposite of wanting any sort of Free Trade, an impossibility.

MANY areas of American life are far worse now than even 20 years ago and can be traced to this Globalist mentality infecting policy. We have been sold a pack of lies. Any who speak-up are labeled isolationists. Used to be called Americans.

-- Anonymous, August 05, 2001