Saturday Afternoon: Interview with Clement Pulaski

Carolyn

August 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm

Thanks joshuaf – But we must remember that Clement said he would not hold other WNs to his decisions as a Christian. In my opinion, ANY White woman, whether Christian or not, can decide for herself what to do in a situation like that and no one has the right to interfere with her decision.

katana

August 5, 2013 at 12:43 am

Clement comes across as thoughtful, sincere and considerate. An asset indeed for the White cause.

But, … I’d just wish though that he’d apply his intelligence to getting himself out of the mind trap that Christianity is. It’s interfering with what should be commonsense on the issue of abortion (for example). I’d think it’s fair to say that it’s ‘common sense’ that there are fringe or extreme cases where abortion is justified.

What about the case where a White woman is viscously raped by a black, mentally retarded, genetically deformed, half jewish, bi-sexual, AIDs infected, drug taking degenerate who also works for the SLPC? Is she allowed to take a morning after pill, Clement? What if she was your wife? Would you say, for the love of Christ, we must not abort this growing tiny bunch of ‘living’ cells and we must bring into this world, a monstrosity? To ruin the lives of all concerned?

Now if your religious views cause you to have to think long and hard about the decision then that should tell you that there is something fundamentally wrong with your beliefs. Wouldn’t you think?

That’s why most religious people don’t take their religion too seriously because they can see it will take them down all sorts of bizarre garden paths leading to decisions that go against all commonsense and decency.

Sorry to be so hard on you here, but I do mean to be helpful. And BTW your hard work at The Daily Stormer is appreciated.

Mike

August 5, 2013 at 8:25 am

Yeah, no one should interfere… IF her decision doesn’t negatively affect a (hypothetical) racial society, genetically or otherwise. God is with us (the race), not one individual.

Don

August 5, 2013 at 10:58 am

A good interview with a thoughtful, intelligent young man who is going through the long, sometimes gut wrenching search for the truth that is a life long endeavor.

I avoid Christian bashing, but I have to say I am convinced that in the long run the white race has not been well served by Christianity. I became an atheist at age 20 after reading the entire new testament, cover to cover. It made no sense to me at all and was, in my view, self defeating. All my life I’ve watched decent intelligent people twist themselves into pretzels to try to reconcile the irreconcilable.

When I was 10 years old and was told by Baptist sunday school teachers that “the Jews are God’s chosen people,” I naively asked that shouldn’t we be going to their church if that were the case? I took this hellfire and brimstone stuff pretty seriously and didn’t want to be on God’s bad side. They were very patient and long suffering with my questions, but I soon realized they were victims of their own delusions and contradictions.

I generally admire pro-life people more than pro-choice people although I avoid much discussion about abortion. Blacks abort at three times the rate of whites and why stop a good thing? (When asked I reply that I have the same position on abortion that I have on owing black slaves: I am pro choice. I personally oppose both practices but I prefer not to force my own personal values down the throats of people who disagree). That being said, no white woman should be forced to carry the offspring of some Negro rapist anymore than she should be forced to submit passively to being poisoned or infected with rabies by a mad dog. Let’s get real about this.

After a life time of pondering the issue of religion, Christianity, blah, blah blah, I have formulated what I think is a pretty good approach to the whole issue:

1. My race is my religion;

2. My skin color is my uniform;

3. I really mean it!

I am impressed with Clement and hope he keeps thinking and writing. We must be free to ask any question and go where our curiosity and research lead us. I have altered many of my own views over a life time and I’m sure he will too. He, as a young many, started out a lot closer to the truth on racial issues than I did as a “color blind” conservative. Thank God (figuratively speaking) I am blind no more.

Charles Traynor

August 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm

I’m appalled that any White Nationalists would be in favour of allowing White women to voluntarily give birth to mulatto children.

I’m definitely not one of those patriarchal types who give White Nationalism a bad name, but I also understand that at times women do allow their hormones and emotions to do their thinking for them. This appears to be one of those occasions. Every compromise we make (in this case because of religion and misguided compassion) weakens our cause and is another step towards our racial extinction. I cannot envisage any situation (even after rape) where White women giving birth to racial mongrels can or should be tolerated or condoned.

A discussion on Eugenics might make an interesting topic for a future show. Having said that, I don’t know how well it might go down in a deeply religious United States.

Charles Traynor

August 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Katana:

Clement comes across as thoughtful, sincere and considerate. An asset indeed for the White cause.

But, … I’d just wish though that he’d apply his intelligence to getting himself out of the mind trap that Christianity is.

Agreed, he seemed to spend a lot of the show making excuses for other Christians i.e. the majority of them. If Christianity were the one true path to God and eternal redemption, the True Believers would need only one sect, not the hundreds of thousands that have popped up over the millennia catering for individual tastes. In Clement’s case his Christian God does not seem to care for blacks, although his God also does not seem to mind White women giving birth to mixed race abominations.

Clement is young and I hope he sorts his head out before religion stifles his true potential and ruins his life.

Clement Pulaski

August 5, 2013 at 11:45 pm

There is always a lot of confusion on the subject of abortion, I’d like to make sure my position is clear.

Abortion is murder; this is the starting point. Murder should be illegal, hence abortion should be illegal. It is just for the state/community to kill those who are guilty of serious crimes, but it is not just to kill the innocent. No matter the deeds of the parents, a mixed-race child in the womb is innocent.

If you say that killing a mixed-race child in the womb after a rape is okay because “it’s just a bunch of cells”, this isn’t an argument in favor of abortion in cases of rape, this is an argument in favor of abortion, period.

If you say that aborting a child might be the will of God, I’m assuming you mean that it is part of divine Providence that such a thing should happen, therefore it is ok to do it. But by this logic you could justify any transgression of the law, human or divine, by saying “it was Providence that I should steal that money”, etc.

katana

August 6, 2013 at 9:20 am

Abortion is murder; this is the starting point. Murder should be illegal, hence abortion should be illegal. It is just for the state/community to kill those who are guilty of serious crimes, but it is not just to kill the innocent. No matter the deeds of the parents, a mixed-race child in the womb is innocent.
————————-

Clement, because of your need to defend a religious belief system and what you think it means, you paint the issue in terms of extreme black and white choices. Pregnancy represents a spectrum of states from the conception to the actual birth of the baby. From a couple of cells to the baby popping out. You argue that ‘life’ exists at the moment of conception, when the sperm enters the egg. I’d say that kind of definition is devaluing and confusing the meaning of the word ‘life’. A bunch of cells is simply not the same as a healthy new born baby.

When you have eggs for breakfast are you murdering innocent loving chickens?

What about when a guy jacks off. Is he a kind of mass murderer because he’s killing millions of potential ‘lives’? OK, maybe only half that number since each sperm is only half of the deal. When you go down the ‘religious’ garden path you can end up seriously and deeply discussing all sorts of absurdities, leading to crazy and dangerous decisions for all concerned. A kind of ‘rational’ insanity.

If you say that killing a mixed-race child in the womb after a rape is okay because “it’s just a bunch of cells”, this isn’t an argument in favor of abortion in cases of rape, this is an argument in favor of abortion, period.
———————–
That’s right, abortion has its limited place in a commonsense run, healthy society. It should be limited to serve the best interests of society. So not only rape victims but also cases where the child will be born handicapped or deformed, etc. This is how humanity, unless inflicted with ‘religious’ nonsense, have operated throughout history, although it has resorted mostly not to abortion but rather, killing the child at birth.

If you say that aborting a child might be the will of God, I’m assuming you mean that it is part of divine Providence that such a thing should happen, therefore it is ok to do it. But by this logic you could justify any transgression of the law, human or divine, by saying “it was Providence that I should steal that money”, etc.
—————–
You are arguing here with your fellow religious believers. This amounts to believers fighting nonsense with nonsense. I’m not playing.

I urge you to reassess your religious beliefs. Once you do so and take it to its natural conclusion you will feel a great burden of confusing, contradictory utter nonsense lifted from your shoulders. I guarantee it.

Bobzilla

August 7, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Katana Wrote:

I’d say that kind of definition is devaluing and confusing the meaning of the word ‘life’. A bunch of cells is simply not the same as a healthy new born baby.

Let’s paraphrase your statement and claim that…

A healthy new born baby is simply not the same as a grown adult.

The foregoing statement is true and correct. Therefore, using your logic, it would be justifiable to kill the baby.

Once you abandon the notion that life begins at conception and deserving of protection from violence (abortion), you are allowing innocent life to be taken for arbitrary reasons, or worst of all, no reason.

Abortion is not a “religious” issue. Lots of non-religious people take the position that life begins at conception. They base this decision of scientific fact, not religious dogma.

Please tell who among us has the wisdom, and moral authority, to decide whether a “bunch of cells”, vs. a newborn, vs. a 30 year old, vs. an 80 year old, is more or less deserving of life.

It is rather ironic that you claim efforts to protect a life at conception are “devaluing” of human life when in fact it is the act of violence which devalues human life. One need look no further than the recent horror house that was run by Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia to see this axiom.

katana

August 8, 2013 at 6:54 am

Bobzilla
August 7, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Katana Wrote:

I’d say that kind of definition is devaluing and confusing the meaning of the word ‘life’. A bunch of cells is simply not the same as a healthy new born baby.

“Let’s paraphrase your statement and claim that…

A healthy new born baby is simply not the same as a grown adult.

The foregoing statement is true and correct. Therefore, using your logic, it would be justifiable to kill the baby.”
—————
That’s hardly paraphrasing, That’s making an abortion of my position!

“Once you abandon the notion that life begins at conception and deserving of protection from violence (abortion), you are allowing innocent life to be taken for arbitrary reasons, or worst of all, no reason.”
————
Even if the ‘life’ begins at conception idea is accepted you still have the fact that some ‘lives’ are more valuable than others.

If the best medical advice told you that your wife, just pregnant, would certainly die from giving birth, while the baby would have a very slim chance of survival, what would you do? Let her have an early abortion or let the inevitable occur? Assuming you’re religious you might take your chances and say whatever happens is ‘God’s will’.

“Abortion is not a “religious” issue. Lots of non-religious people take the position that life begins at conception. They base this decision of scientific fact, not religious dogma.”
—————-
I’d say the vast majority of hard core no-abortion people are religious. For us non-religious types it’s an issue of looking at things pragmatically and not on ‘when life begins’ questions. Or how many aborted cells can dance on a pinhead.

“Please tell who among us has the wisdom, and moral authority, to decide whether a “bunch of cells”, vs. a newborn, vs. a 30 year old, vs. an 80 year old, is more or less deserving of life.”
———–
Lots of people. Maybe not in Theological Colleges pondering the imponderable, but it’s done everyday by everyday people.

“It is rather ironic that you claim efforts to protect a life at conception are “devaluing” of human life when in fact it is the act of violence which devalues human life.”
————-
Because in the real world hard choices often need to be made.

Imagine being Captain of a lifeboat in certain danger of sinking. The cruise ship you were on happened to be hosting a Miss America contestant tour group while also hosting a reunion of over eighty year old jewish woman who survived the Holohoax. Would you get everyone to draw straws? Or without ceremony turf the Holohoax ladies overboard, along with their wheelchairs and walkers? For we know the Holohoax ladies would not do the gracious thing, would they? So a choice had to be made, save the young hotties or save a few of each group. Of course there would be some private negotiation going on between you and each hottie. (Captn’s privilege!)

So my gratuitous example translated into the abortion issue is that a bunch of cells has limited voting rights that gradually and then rapidly increase with their numbers until at some point in the the pregnancy they start to exceed the voting rights of eighty plus year old grannies or granddads. At both ends of the spectrum their ‘lives’ are worth very much less, socially speaking.

“One need look no further than the recent horror house that was run by Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia to see this axiom.”
———–
Horror house abortion clinics are a separate issue from the issue of abortion itself. There can be horror house hospitals, yet that doesn’t mean we should close all hospitals, does it?

OK, I’ve patiently replied to all your points. Can you reply to my hypothetical question I asked in my very first comment to Clement, re the rape by a degenerate black, etc.? What would you do? My ‘commonsense’ would recommend early abortion.