Post: #26

(06-18-2018 05:49 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  ^^^
Teddy (he hated that nickname!) is an interesting one. I've read a few books about (and by) him. Including his 'Winning of the West' series (he didn't have a high opinion of Native Americans!), 'Through the Brazilian Wilderness' (he was far too old and unfit to be hacking his way through the Amazon! No wonder it nearly killed him and ultimately hastened him towards an early exit) and a couple of biographies.

He was undoubtedly inspirational and seemed to live enough for five people; Author, Adventurer, Politician, Soldier (he really wanted this!), Academic. Pugilist (cost him an eye!), Judoka, marksman (though not a good shot), read several books a day, got shot but ignored his wound to finish his speech, tracked & captured robbers etc. How much of it all is spin and how much was legit?

I once read that Christopher Nolan based his Batman on TR ie; what would someone with unlimited money be able to achieve?

On the downside, his detractors portray him as being a violence loving gore-hound trying to live up to an idealized image of his father. Actually, I'd be interested to know what negative opinions people have about him? I always try to get a rounded picture of historic characters and I can't find a lot of bad things about him. And the 'bad things' other people see, I tend to view as positive anyway! RVF'ers in the US might have a better perspective on him than I have. Was he a globalist for example?

In terms of being an ideal political leader, I'd say he passes the Taleb test of having 'skin in the game'; volunteered and fought in the Spanish American War (although I did once read that he was alleged to have shot a man in the back (rather than the more heroic story he re-told himself. But I couldn't find confirmation of this anywhere). Volunteered to fight in WW1 even though he was too old. Actually lost his son in WW1.

Also, anyone who has a whole category on Wikipedia entitled 'Persona and Masculinity' can't be too bad a choice!

Haven't checked if there's already a thread on TR, but if there isn't it would make for good reading.

Teddy was something special. He was a man's man. Extremely masculine, intelligent, and was smooth when he needed to be too. Invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House! Then instead of apologizing, said he'd do it again!

Teddy a Globalist? Nah. In some ways he was imperialist, expansionist, and isolationist. Being a globalist is something later on the timeline of human history in my opinion. While a big topic on it's own, I do not think you can call anyone that until you get closer to the advent of Globalism itself.

Too many good things can be said about him. There is a reason why his face is on Mount Rushmore when the others on it are much older in the past than he was.

Post: #27

^^^
Glad to hear it. TR gets my vote then as 'Ideal Political Leader'.

Actually, if we get a shortlist of candidates later on, we should do a poll?

Post: #28

Richard Spencer? David Duke? Andrew Anglin?

Post: #29

Is this a trick question?





Second choice, this guy:

Post: #30

"Ideal Political leader - Who would he be?"

Post: #31

Teddy Roosevelt was a globalist stooge - sure he was a masculine character, but ultimately a peon of the globalist elite. I read multiple essays on his election and why he was chosen while real alternatives for the people got squashed.

It does not matter whether he liked Booker T Washington and had the balls to do certain right things - he was no Andrew Jackson, Lincoln or Kennedy who actually opposed the globalists. Keep in mind that individual masculine characteristics don't make someone a globalist lackey, but how well he serves the elite on key issues. The true only anti-globalist candidate back then was William Jennings Bryan - the elite owned all other candidates and they used Roosevelt in the second election to prevent the win of Bryan.

Post: #32

(06-18-2018 01:25 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  Teddy Roosevelt was a globalist stooge - sure he was a masculine character, but ultimately a peon of the globalist elite. I read multiple essays on his election and why he was chosen while real alternatives for the people got squashed.

It does not matter whether he liked Booker T Washington and had the balls to do certain right things - he was no Andrew Jackson, Lincoln or Kennedy who actually opposed the globalists. Keep in mind that individual masculine characteristics don't make someone a globalist lackey, but how well he serves the elite on key issues. The true only anti-globalist candidate back then was William Jennings Bryan - the elite owned all other candidates and they used Roosevelt in the second election to prevent the win of Bryan.

Thanks Simeon. While I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with your analysis, that's just the kind of thing I was looking for when I wrote my earlier post asking for TR criticism. I find him fascinating and I want to learn more about him, 'warts and all'.

To lay my cards on the table I've long been a TR fanboy but I'd read the TR 'globalist' slur somewhere before and it surprised me and got me thinking. I've always thought of him as Travelerkai described above; as something of an Imperialist/Isolationist. I know he pushed for a 'League of Nations' but I'm not certain he expected it (or the later UN) to usurp the sovereignty of its respective countries. Teddy always strikes me as being exceptionally honest, perhaps naively so. It may be that he was used by the globalists? I'll keep reading about him and try and make my own mind up.

Also, Andrew Jackson is someone I really need to read up on!

Post: #33

< Look - it does not matter what the Big Boys told Teddy to do - he did it. There was far more going on if you look into the deep state of things. Carroll Quigley also said that he was one of them.

Lincoln and Kennedy for example were also "theirs", but they later betrayed the Big Boys. Lincoln wasn't such an angel - he offered the South perennial slavery if they remained in the union, he declared war on them less because of slavery but because of wanting to leave the Union, he liberated the slaves during war to force the men to flee back afraid for their daughters - he kept slavery alive in the Union states. But Lincoln seemed to have opposed other plans and wanted to expand the Greenback.

Kennedy was also one of theirs who just kept his true intentions secret - then he moved against the secret services and printed 100 mio. $ not FED-backed, but state backed dollar notes. His folly was that he could get away with it.

Andrew Jackson survived multiple attempts at his life for his successful closure of the first globalist owned central bank. He should have also banned fractional reserve lending and initiated a usury free state monetary system with demurrage. The globalist might not have made a comeback from that - the US then would have been way too powerful and the economic success would have been 5 times better than it was. Jackson had the highest chance of success. Teddy was a cool guy to hang, but he knew where his bread was buttered and likely did not care about real change.

Post: #34

TR wasn't a globalist as that did not really exist back them.

He sold out to bankers rather.

Post: #35

(06-15-2018 11:40 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  The child of Kona and Kim Kardashian raised by Matt Forney as a single parent.

That kid would have a really nice ass.

And Matt Forney gonna need an anchor baby to get himself into the Polynesian Ethno-State.

This is a win-win.

Aloha!

Post: #36

Bill Maher.