The Solar Storm: Robert Lloyd (2-8-15)

TC-125150-MainIcon

Kyle speaks with Robert Lloyd, creator of Heroes in History audio movies and host of Rockin’ the Music World. Topics include: Robert’s background and current work, the importance of music, White Nationalism, Southern Nationalism, Hellstorm, and much more!

Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Seamus
5 years ago

I consider bad information to be worse the no information as you can be demolished by leftists if you are quoting incorrect stats.

This guys stats were not quite correct.

Replacement Fertility is 2.1 not 2.4.

Inner London is 36% White British(Mainland British including scots and welsh)
Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/index.html?pageSize=50&sortBy=none&sortDirection=none&newquery=LC2202EW

ladyD
5 years ago

white supremacist with an asian daughter? what a clown

GTRman
5 years ago

This is Snordelhans AKA Patrick Willis.

He’s up for helping out on “Hellstorm” , as you know

http://grizzom.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/why-are-you-telling-me.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFCaKtDzuA

5 years ago

You are the one calling him a “white supremacist”, and considering he explicitly said in the interview that he was not one, that makes you look clownish.

Heimdal
5 years ago

Great show indeed Kyle. Keep the good work and Keep On Rocking.

5 years ago

I am simply amazed how many Americans in the south who still buy the line, “The war of Southern Aggression was fought over states rights”. States rights has always amounted to this : The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state. Isn’t it time the south admit they were led to destruction by the aristocratic 1%… Read more »

5 years ago

white supremacist??????????????

michael
5 years ago

Sure, Northpal, as a voluntary member of the Union, federal law is supreme and states are bound by it. But, what about the “state’s right” to LEAVE the Union when it becomes discriminately oppressive, making living conditions unbearable? Most of the South was well aware that it was a “rich man’s war”; and, they depended on those rich men for their livelihood.

5 years ago

michael You don’t leave by firing upon a federal fort. Can you quote me a article of the constitution expressing said “state’s right” ? Can you demonstrate when the Union became discriminately oppressive, making living conditions unbearable? In documents of Declaration of Causes of Seceding States – Texas,Mississippi,SOUTH CAROLINA, Georgia. A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession. Nothing about a “discriminately oppressive Union”, only the aristocratic 2 percenters property (slaves) and wish to expand such holdings and practices westward. The average man did not depend on those rich men for their livelihood. As a matter of fact, most plantations were self sufficient with their slave labor. How do you think slaves bought their freedom? During the slow times and free… Read more »

michael
5 years ago

I guess the South, in the 1860’s, had a different idea of how to secede than your approved method. However, secession was declared prior to the South demanding that the Feds leave Fort Sumter and subsequently firing on the ship that was attempting to resupply troops stationed there.
Most Southerners didn’t own plantations, or slaves, that is true, however shipping and the money made from import/export business, primarily trade with Europe, was a major source of the prosperity in the South, and in fact the entire nation since most of the millionaires of the time lived in the South, which was being unfairly taxed due to lack of congressional representation. Which war wasn’t “a rich man’s war”?

5 years ago

“a different idea of how to secede than your approved method.” – well, they could have just abided by The Law of Nations, like the rest of the planet has for thousands of years. ” demanding that the Feds leave Fort Sumter ” – demanding you leave YOUR deeded property ? huh ? ” attempting to resupply troops stationed there”- yes, food and medicine, there were families (women and children) there. “shipping and the money made from import/export business, primarily trade with Europe, was a major source of the prosperity in the South” – no, the wealth was in the ownership of the slaves used as the only collateral they had when borrowing from northern banks for planting. ” the South, which was being unfairly… Read more »

michael
5 years ago

a difference of opinion, Sumter was occupied ground in Confederate territory the Constitution defined Treason as making war against the States, not the federal gov’t Lincoln and those who waged war against the South were traitors to the Constitution Lincoln promised in his campaign speeches to invade any States that refused to pay tariffs on imports These tariffs had been imposed increasingly since the signing of the Constitution. You are correct, they were not taxes. Although there were taxes, the Congress was hesitant to use them, having just been to war with England over them. These tariffs were used to raise fund, mostly paid by Southern importers, because buying foreign manufactured goods was cheaper, even with the tariffs, than shipping them from the north. The… Read more »

michael
5 years ago

BTW, I’m not trying to justify or romanticize it. It was a treasonous criminal war, started by the traitor and war criminal, Abraham Lincoln, when he promised to invade any State that refused to pay unjust tariffs. Nullification is a States Right, or at least it was back then.

5 years ago

“Lincoln didn’t give a sh_t about slaves”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTqmEU4uncA&feature=youtu.be

Taken from, “War: The Definitive Visual History”, under the section, “Five Major Myths of Military History”:
comment image

5 years ago

WTF does ” occupied ground in Confederate territory” mean ?????? So any sovereign ownership of property I have in the south, you are gonna just steal it by bombarding my wife and kids with canon, then when I come back and destroy you, lament the outcome ? All at the beck and call of some rich aristocrat ? Lincoln just as Andrew Jackson before him warned he would use federal power to enforce the tariff laws. As a matter of fact, when the great southern 2 percemter John C. Calhoun from where else but South Carolina whilst serving as vice president under Andrew Jackson, proposed the theory of a concurrent majority through the doctrine of nullification. Jackson was preparing troops to enforce the law, catch… Read more »

michael
5 years ago

It means what I said. South Carolina was a Confederate State. The federal government was occupying a military installation in a Confederate State without the State’s consent, another treasonous act of war by the North. They were told to leave. They sent ships to resupply, maintain the occupation, and impose the will of the federal government over a sovereign State. States’ rights…

5 years ago

“The federal government was occupying a military installation in a Confederate State without the State’s consent,” – What do you not understand ? Sumter was Federally deeded and owned. It was not owned by South Carolina, and didn’t need their permission for squat. Lincoln had said he would defend (as was his duty as president) all and any federal property. The three forts not deeded to the Federal Government were abandoned with no incident. But a few spoiled aristocrats, suckered the rest of the south into a ruinous blood bath does not justify southern aggression. Beauregard (artillery experience) was pulled in from Louisiana specifically for that plan of desperation to get Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina involved in their treasonous stupidity. They fired canon… Read more »

michael
5 years ago

What do you not understand about eminent domain?
What do you not understand about a State’s Sovereignty within its own borders?
What do you not understand about Treason,
defined as waging war with a STATE or siding with the enemies of a STATE or STATE?
The States created the Federal Gov’t to govern by consent.
Without consent, it is not legitimate.
They should have vacated, then sued for compensation.
Instead, a few spoiled bankers and industrialists suckered the North into TREASON against the Constitution and the States, in the interest of centralizing power in the North.

5 years ago

Ooooh-weee, guys! Oooooh-weeee. Don’t stop. Keep it coming.

lol

5 years ago

michael Was it a states rights issue or a ploy by a belligerent Central Aristocracy’s attempt to force sides with a Act of Southern Aggression ? – Confederacy formed February 4, 1861. – Constitution adopted March 11, 1861. – Battle of Fort Sumter April 12, 1861. In March, Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard took command of South Carolina forces in Charleston; on March 1, President Jefferson Davis had appointed him the first general officer in the armed forces of the new Confederacy, specifically to take command of the siege. It was not a “state” (if you secede (legalities aside ) , how can you be recognized as a state ? and under direction of foreign (“Confederacy, again legalities aside) government and also claim a “state’s” action… Read more »

20
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x