Category: That Question Again

Free speech and open discussion issues

It’s been said that the halls of academia echo with the chorus of freedom of speech, but the most vociferous members of this chorus often do everything within their power to suppress it! I know of no better example than this of the uselessness of explicitly endorsing support for free speech; behavior, not what one superficially endorses, matters.

Assuming one’s inclined toward respecting freedom of speech, how does one accommodate those hostile to free speech? Suppressing the hostiles is a form of suppression of free speech, but one must suppress the hostiles in order to freely discuss the things the hostiles want suppressed. An open discussion can’t be productive if the hostiles barge in with obfuscation, lies, distortions, noise, nonsense, straw men, trolling, guilt-by-association arguments, discrediting the opponent by making assumptions and then critiquing the assumptions, exposing false information by fellow-hostiles, false dichotomies, deflecting attention from the perpetrators, directing animosity toward the victims and other foul techniques.

Getting rid of the hostiles is an easy matter if the discussion is taking place among a non-proselytising group. The hostiles can complain all they want about suppression of free speech, but the group can keep them out without explanation and without apology.

But the solution to having a productive discussion with hostiles lurking about isn’t easy when the discussion group seeks to bring naive individuals and fence sitters into the fold. Let’s look at a specific issue, the discussion of who did 9/11.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 12:49 AM in 9/11,  Activism,  Blogs & Blogging,  Education,  That Question Again,  Thread Wars
Comments (217) | Tell-a-Friend

Re: The New American Divide, by Charles Murray

[submission by Genotype]

Murray’s thesis is higher cognitive abilities lead to greater economic productivity and thus higher salaries. This is merely an update to Ayn Rand‘s update to Horatio Alger’s “rags to riches” legends.

Murray and his jewish employers at AEI have two transparent goals:

1.Describe what anyone with an IQ > 90 can see has happened and continues to happen economically.

2.Gain control of the discourse by eliminating all references to “The Other” from the universe of permitted explanations for #1.

Re: What the Top 1% of Earners Majored In

The undergrad degree data don’t support Murray’s proposed explanation for the Great Divide. Undergrad science and engineering majors that might lead to advanced science degrees are grossly underrepresented in the 1% group. They are so underrepresented that this data alone falsifies Murray’s primary explanation.

“Biology” obviously serves as a proxy for “pre-med.” Humanities majors of the kind that comprise “pre-law” curriculums are heavily over-represented. History, “economics,” and political science are obvious pre-law programs. What to make of zoology and physiology, except failure to make the cut for “pre-med”? Note that mathematics and physics are on the bottom.  Computer science and mechanical/electrical/civil engineering didn’t make the list.

Posted by R-news on Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 06:59 PM in Blogs & Blogging,  Economics & Finance,  Education,  Global Elitism,  Political analysis,  Social Sciences,  That Question Again
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

The piracy of digital copyrighted content: SOPA, PIPA, etc.

Readers will be aware of legislative endeavors such as SOPA and PIPA (also ACTA and others), superficially intended to tackle the problem of piracy of digital copyrighted content, and the recent seizure of megaupload.com and associated arrests. Whereas the copyright owners could work out deals with file hosts to charge reasonable fees for the distribution of their copyrighted content, they’re not interested. It has been pointed out that a major reason is that they wish to control the dissemination of information—“they” being the very small minority that owns the copyrights to the majority of accessible-for-fee digital content. Digital technologies make it easy to cheaply produce, or simply upload, and use the bandwidth of file hosts, such as the former megaupload, to disseminate gigabytes of information that the authorities may not like. But there are two other perspectives that should also be discussed.

The first is about the nature of copyrighted content and the meaning of piracy. The pirate bay says:

Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would “do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear.” He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edison’s patents for the motion pictures it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North American east coast. The movie studios therefore relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there was no patent. There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them—like

Fantasia, one of Disney’s biggest hits ever.

So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: “stole”) other people’s creative works, without paying for it. They did it in order to make a huge profit. Today they’re all successful and most of the studios are on the Fortune 500 list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations—it’s all based on being able to re-use other people’s creative works. And today they hold the rights to what other people create.

If you want to get something released, you have to abide to their rules. The ones they created after circumventing other people’s rules.

The reason they are always complaintng about “pirates” today is simple. We’ve done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow people to have direct communication between each other, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them).

It’s all based on the fact that we’re competition. We’ve proven that their existence in their current form is no longer needed. We’re just better than they are.

And the funny part is that our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of the USA. We fight for freedom of speech. We see all people as equal. We believe that the public, not the elite, should rule the nation. We believe that laws should be created to serve the public, not the rich corporations.

The Pirate Bay is truly an international community. The team is spread all over the globe—but we’ve stayed out of the USA. We have Swedish roots and a Swedish friend said this: The word SOPA means “trash” in Swedish. The word PIPA means “a pipe” in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence. They want to make the internet into a one-way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers. The public opinion on this matter is clear. Ask anyone on the street and you’ll learn that no one wants to be fed with trash. Why the U.S. government wants the American people to be fed with trash is beyond our imagination but we hope that you will stop them, before we all drown...

...To fix the “problem of piracy” one should go to the source of the problem. The entertainment industry say they’re creating “culture” but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11-year-old girls become anorexic... either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and tv shows that make them think that they’re fat.

More here.

Thaddeus Russell provides additional details about how Thomas Edison’s intellectual property and equipment were stolen:

Soon after he invented the motion picture camera and projector, Thomas Edison formed his own movie production and distribution company. In 1908, Edison joined with nine other film companies to form the Motion Picture Patents Company, a monopoly that attempted to control the making, distribution, and showing of all movies in the United States. Edison and “The Trust” pledged to make only movies that promoted wholesome, Christian, and “American” values. But on the Lower East Side, a group of entrepreneurial Jewish immigrants used Edison’s inventions to produce and screen their own films, which were shown in thousands of nickelodeons – five-cent movie theaters – in working-class neighborhoods all over the country. These “outlaw” filmmakers started out as vaudeville and burlesque promoters, and many of their movies were sexier, more violent, and far more entertaining than the bland fare put out by the Edison monopoly.

The great inventor was furious that “Jewish profiteers” were stealing his patent, getting rich from it, and using it to spread “smut” across America. So too were law enforcement officials. In 1907 a judge in Chicago wrote that the nickelodeons “caused, indirectly or directly, more juvenile crime coming into my court than all other causes combined.” Shortly thereafter the Chicago city council passed an ordinance granting power to the chief of police to censor motion pictures played in the city. In New York in 1907, soon after the police commissioner recommended that nickel shows be wiped out entirely, Mayor George McClellan was so moved by the evidence of immoral motion pictures polluting the minds of his citizens that on Christmas Day he ordered that all of the illicit motion picture houses be shut down.

Moral condemnations and court injunctions didn’t stop the proliferation of nickelodeons that showed unseemly fare and violated Edison’s patent, so the inventor and his colleagues hired squads of thugs to shut them down. They seized film, beat up directors and actors, forced audiences out of theaters, smashed the nickelodeon arcades and set fire to entire city blocks where they were concentrated. But fortunately for the Jewish renegades, they lived and operated in neighborhoods where hundreds of soldiers stood ready and able to protect them – men like “Big” Jack Zelig, “Lefty Louie” Rosenberg, “Gyp the Blood” Horowitz, Joe “The Greaser” Rosenzweig, and the leaders of the notorious Yiddish Black Hand, Jacob “Johnny” Levinsky and “Charley the Cripple” Vitoffsky. There were even women ready for the fight – fierce, well-armed “gun-mols” like Bessie London, Tillie Finkelstein, Birdie Pomerantz, and Jennie “The Factory” Morris.

Cameras, projectors, film, and sound equipment disappeared from the storerooms of Edison companies and showed up on makeshift movie lots on the Lower East Side. Bullets rained down on the Trust’s enforcers from the rooftops of nickelodeons. And massive fires destroyed the Edison distributors’ warehouses in the Bronx, Philadelphia, and Chicago. By 1915 the Trust had disbanded and the outlaw filmmakers moved west, where they could make bigger and better movies. Who were the men who, with the help of their nicknamed friends, fought Thomas Edison and the law and won? They were Marcus Loew of Loews Theatres and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Carl Laemmle of Universal Pictures, Adolph Zukor of Paramount Pictures, William Fox of Twentieth-Century Fox, and the brothers Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner.

More.

The second issue’s about disposable income. Most people will support the singers, musicians, authors and content producers they like if they have disposable income, but the same community that has acquired copyright of most written works, music, TV programming and movies produced in recent decades, producing a substantial amount of this work in bad faith—e.g., lies, propaganda—is also behind international banking, thereby impoverishing the majority and making disposable income hard to come up with.

The Hell with these people!

Posted by J Richards on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 02:23 PM in Global Elitism,  Media,  That Question Again,  World Affairs
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

The Relevance of Ethnocentrism

Previously it was shown that intelligence was of practically no relevance to explaining spectacular Jewish success (control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.). An alternative proposed was ethnocentrism. This can be examined, too.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC), at the University of Chicago, has conducted an annual General Social Survey (GSS) of a random, representative sample of Americans from 1972 onward.

In 1996 and 2004, it asked respondents to answer how close they felt to their racial or ethnic group [variable coded as ETHCLOSE]. The 4 possible responses were: very close, close, not very close, not close at all. Assigning these responses values of 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, Ron Guhname provided the following averages:

Table 1. ETHCLOSE values
Orthodox Jew (3.86), Conservative Jew (3.71), black (3.53), Norwegian (3.36), All Jews (3.31), Mexican (3.25), Italian (3.20), Irish (3.19), Reform Jew (3.15), American average (3.15), French (3.11), Polish (3.04), English/Welsh (3.02), German (3.01), Scottish (3.00), Other Jew (2.92).

ETHCLOSE captures the core of ethnocentrism and will have to do in the absence of better data on representative samples. Jews, on average, are more ethnocentric than whites. Now let’s look at the proportions among whites, by year:

Table 2. ETHCLOSE answers for whites (percentages)
1996: very close (33.9), close (41.2), not very close (18.9), not close at all (6.0)
2004: very close (39.5), close (36.3), not very close (19.6), not close at all (4.7)
Average: very close (36.5), close (38.9), not very close (19.2), not close at all (5.4)

In the data, Jews are coded as white. Assume that all Jews who say they’re not very close to Jews are lying, in reality very close to their group. This gives a population having a size of about 3.3% of the white population that is very close to its ethnic/racial group, whereas at least 30% of whites are very close to their ethnic/racial grouping. In other words, the number of ethnocentric whites considerably exceeds the number of ethnocentric Jews. We’re dealing with some crudeness, but in spite of making some assumptions that favor those who explain spectacular Jewish success in terms of ethnocentrism, we have to conclude that this couldn’t possibly be an explanation.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 01:59 AM in Education,  European Nationalism,  Social Sciences,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (39) | Tell-a-Friend

Supply and demand: The economics of mass immigration

It was claimed that the devastation of the Third World by bankers creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. The retort was that this is a Judeo-Marxist canard used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. The retort added that parts of Africa in 1812 had yet to see the wheel, the implication being that Third world nations have been built or economically enhanced by the West. The retort also blames slaughters and devastation in the Third World on their natives alone.

Let’s see. Civilization shouldn’t be confused with economic security. An isolated hunter-gatherer tribe living in a jungle typically has sufficient food to eat, clothing and living structures; they are willing and able to provide for themselves. Whereas in a modern civilization such as the U.S., tens of millions are unable to provide food for themselves, in spite of being willing and able to work, and must depend on government handouts such as food stamps, and there are millions of homeless people.

The reason for the economic problems of Western nations is that malicious bankers issue and control money, which is also the case for nearly all Third World nations. So how does the Third world fare under banker control?

For a while now, this is how the international bankers have dealt with the Third World [some things apply to some Western nations also]:

If I recall correctly, Professor Joseph Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for his work on the following 4-step process.

PRIVATIZATION
Bribe a nation’s leaders to trim billions off the sale price of national assets.

CAPITAL MARKET LIBERALIZATION
Repeal laws that tax money going abroad. International bankers pump in money to gamble on property, currency. When the economy starts to look promising, they pull out their money, devastating the nation.

Now the nation needs emergency IMF loans, which the IMF provides by creating the money for loans out of thin air. Two conditions are attached. The nation has to raise its interest rates considerably. These high interest rates will impoverish the nation. The other condition for the loan is that the electricity, water, telephone and gas systems are effectively sold to international corporations.

MARKET-BASED PRICING
The prices of food, water and domestic gas are raised. This results in social unrest, possibly riots. When massive demonstrations or riots occur, investors start pulling out their money, the government goes bankrupt. Foreign financial corporations can now buy many of the nation’s assets at rock-bottom prices.

FREE TRADE
Now international corporations move into developing nations, whereas Third World agricultural products are barricaded from the West. The bankers impose extortionate tariffs, which these countries have to pay for in branded pharmaceuticals, causing soaring rates of death and disease. And so on.

Naturally, Third World nations will experience significant emigration pressures. Residents of some European nations will better understand what the Third World experiences when austerirty measures in their nations become more severe to pay the interests on loans they need from banks.

As of now, people are rioting over gas prices in Nigeria, but before one brings in the violence proneness of blacks, take a guess at what’s caused the rise and toward which purpose. One has to wonder how many other instances of rioting in Third World nations have their root cause in what the international bankers do, not in violence that would occur no matter what. These international bankers are behind numerous wars in the Western hemisphere, and they surely haven’t left the Third world in peace.

Notice that some black African nations are resource-rich but the masses live in poverty. Is this due to the corruption of their elite? They have corrupt elite, but if this were the reason, there would be lots of black billionaires [U.S. dollars] in some African nations, whereas the natural resource-related wealth is siphoned out by the international bankers, in the manner detailed above, and scraps, in comparison, are given to the corrupt elite.

People complain about me focusing on money and the community disproportionately controlling it when there are serious immigration issues to be discussed, but what’s causing the immigration issues? It takes more than merely opening Western borders to immigrants; Third Worlders need an incentive to emigrate en masse, too.

Will the masses be willing to go to a land far, far away where people speak a different language and have a very different culture if the masses have a reasonable income/sustenance where they live, and live in a relatively peaceful society? Will the masses be willing to give up the security of their existence for discordance, learning and re-learning skills in a foreign nation and the uncertainty of having a similar level of economic security there? These are important questions to reflect on. A desire to emigrate will be true of some individuals, but not the masses if there’s basic economic security [food, shelter, clothing, base medical facilities] and no warfare or civil strife.

But economic devastation provides a strong incentive for mass emigration pressure in the Third World. And thus we have the demand and supply of contemporary mass immigration into Western nations:

Demand

The bankers need to flood the nations where their diaspora live to undermine ethnic solidarity among the host populations and keep the citizens occupied with all the troubles that accompany racial and cultural diversity. This way the bankers reduce the chances of a public or political revolt that vanquishes them.

Supply

Economically devastated Third Worlders naturally want to emigrate en masse.

So is it wise to complain about immigration levels and focus on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims----like Amren, Vdare, the masses of the “alternative right” or “Third position” crowds----or is it wise to aim for the root cause, which lies in malicious bankers controlling the money supply? And is it wise to just focus on the money issue or also expose some of the other major crimes of these people, such as 9/11? They bring in all these immigrants to undermine ethnic cohesion in the West. Complaining about immigration doesn’t help and exacerbates division. But the money issue and 9/11 are of universal significance and unite the divided against the bankers. And some people complain of conspiracy and detraction from the important issues, such as immigration and multiculturalism, when 9/11 is brought up!

Posted by J Richards on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM in Demographics,  Economics & Finance,  Globalisation,  Immigration,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (80) | Tell-a-Friend

Key issues

Dr. Graham Lister:

Perhaps the key issues are actually these ones:

“Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” (T.S. Eliot)

T_ob S_hebbe G_oyim H_arog Eli:

Ugh, dry bread; where’s the honey? In the bottle stolen by the bunny. I can’t eat this, this isn’t funny. Not my fault, we’re out of money.

Whereas in Tel Aviv on a day sunny, cavorting with 9-year-old Russian Kenny, ponders gluttonous Abe from Albany, “lethal injection I’d be facing on the gurney, if there were just desserts for larceny, but here I salivate over counting shekels, watching the goyim fall for our blarney.”

Discuss.

Posted by R-news on Friday, January 13, 2012 at 11:54 PM in Humour,  That Question Again
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

Intelligence vs. control of the money supply

A recent proposal has argued that nationalists should try to seek reproduction with higher IQ whites so that:

“They will naturally rise to the highest levels of society and victory will be inevitable. This is how the white race will be saved.”

The prospects can be empirically evaluated. Richard Lynn has extensively summarized IQ studies on Jews. Most studies are non-representative. A representative American study reported a Jewish (Ashkenazi) verbal IQ of 107.5. Two representative British studies have reported Jewish (Ashkenazi) IQs as 108.5 and 107.7 (verbal = 107.3, non-verbal = 108.0). The best reading of American and British Ashkenazi IQ is 110. The average white IQ in these regions is 100.

In the U.S., there are about 200 million whites and 6.5 million Jews. Assuming a standard deviation of 15 in both populations, we get the following.

As anyone can see, Jews haven’t achieved their spectacular success (e.g., control of the mainstream media, ZOG, etc.) as a result of IQ; they achieved it by acquiring control of the money supply. Nationalists are advised to target getting back control of the money supply instead of trying to increase IQ. I’m not against increasing IQ, but IQ just isn’t relevant to the matter.

Posted by R-news on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 09:44 PM in Anthropology,  European Nationalism,  Global Elitism,  IQ and Heredity,  Jewish Diaspora,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (148) | Tell-a-Friend

Money, banking and related issues

The money issue, specifically how it’s created and who controls its supply, is arguably the most important of all issues discussed at or relevant to MR. Tired of malicious individuals spreading disinformation on money and banking, I finally posted a Money FAQ. This should’ve been here from Day 1, but better late than never.

Preservation, survival; quality of life

Some of the discussion here’s been about preservation and survival. But survival can occur in a coma, and an endangered species can be preserved in a cage-like setting. Quality of living goes beyond mere survival or propagation, and money’s central to it for most practical purposes.

Higher order aspects of living such as the pursuit of special knowledge, philosophy, non-work-related attempts to improve ourselves on our own initiative, the indulgence of passions, etc., require financial stability, discretionary income and spare time. But people in Western nations are increasingly drowning in debt and face a not-too-distant future where the majority of us live in poverty, like most people in the Third World. The overwhelming, singular cause for this is that our money’s created, as debt [out of nothing], by bankers, and it’s these bankers who’re in control of the money supply, which they manipulate to their advantage.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 11:21 PM in Activism,  Economics & Finance,  That Question Again,  World Affairs
Comments (71) | Tell-a-Friend

The Jew and the gypsies

I know, a boring and predictable post.  But no matter how often I encounter the sheer brazen audacity of these repellent, racist creatures who, time and again, interfere against the interests our people, I still experience one of those lost-for-words, head-shaking moments.  Of course ... a Jew.  It has to be a Jew.

For the uninitiated, in England there is a practise among mainly Irish travellers (or gypsies) of buying up a few acres of agricultural land and invading it very quickly and en masse, laying concrete, putting in drainage and power, and occupying the site without planning consent.

Naturally enough, this causes much anguish among the local community, as they find their way of life infected by theft, filth and hostility from the newcomers.  It becomes impossible to move home.  It becomes unbearable to remain.  The local authority, having embarked upon the battle to evict the gypsies and reclaim the site, finds itself confronted by a cynical, human rights-savvy opponent accessing public funds to fight the public interest.  Years sometimes pass this way.  At Dale Farm, it’s been ten!  And now, Dr Jonathan Oppenheim - “one of the worlds leading physicists” - is doing his very best to prolong the agony for the real victims of the Dale Farm affair.

... his greatest contribution has been at the High Court where he has been pouring over planning law books and papers to help advise on the case. Yesterday the travellers successfully extended an injunction which prevents them from being evicted until next week.

“The eviction of Dale Farm is becoming increasingly untenable,” he said. “We are proving that the residents had a reasonable expectation that they would get planning permission because everybody around them was getting it.

“We say that the prime reason they are not being allowed to stay is because of fear against them.”

Of course, the “unfounded” and “irrational” European “fear” of the “other”.  Every Jew who has used that stratagem is projecting.  They can’t help it.  They must trespass against the host.  It’s their sociobiology.  As it’s ours, eventually, to see the pattern and call a halt to it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, September 26, 2011 at 07:48 PM in That Question Again
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

9/11 Tenth Anniversary Special

9-11 is 10 years past. Liars and useful idiots still insist that 19 Arabs belonging to a terrorist group called Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, did it, which has to be one of the most absurd conspiracies ever mass marketed to the public.

For MANY YEARS now we’ve had tons of evidence, including names and pictures, pointing to the Jews who planned, orchestrated, assisted with, benefited from, blocked a scientific investigation of and covered up their involvement in 9/11.

When the Muslim conspiracy started to unravel, Jews created a 9/11 truth movement, promoting, in the alternative media, the inside job conspiracy.

But 9/11 is clearly an outside job or an outside conspiracy, and I’ve just posted a review of the evidence to observe the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

This evidence can be found all over the internet and there’s nothing original in my compilation. All credits go to the original researchers.

I’d say the increasing chorus for a renewed investigation is misplaced as the chorus should be about hanging the Jews involved and dispatching them to Hell forthwith, but the useful idiots promoting the 19 Arabs conspiracy take the cake... now please get a clue.

My intent in reviewing the 9/11 evidence isn’t merely to reproduce it at MR, but to use it to address the treatment of 9/11 in nationalist circles. Here I’ll focus on the treatment of 911 on the occasion of its tenth anniversary.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 03:04 PM in 9/11,  European Nationalism,  That Question Again,  War on Terror,  White Nationalism
Comments (960) | Tell-a-Friend

Review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence

Anders Behring Breivik is said to be a Justiciar Knight, whose badge, depicting what the reincarnated Templar Knights are about, is contrasted with the painting titled “Beat the whites with the red wedge,” a Bolshevist propaganda poster from 1919. Based on this comparison, what can you infer about the manifesto he allegedly wrote? Another clue: the Archeofuturists have shoveled a hole that they’ll enlarge into a massive pit within which they’ll be buried.

Teasers aside, here’s my review of 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, and more. I’m not posting it below because I intend to revise it.

NO OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS, please, and stick to the facts and fact-based inference.

Posted by J Richards on Monday, September 5, 2011 at 08:18 PM in European Nationalism,  Far Right,  Islam & Islamification,  Marxism & Culture War,  Media,  Political analysis,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism,  World Affairs
Comments (40) | Tell-a-Friend

Susie Green (VDARE) tells us why an Anglo-Saxon homeland or white nationalism is doomed. Is it?

Some comments on an essay by Susie Green at VDARE.com.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Monday, July 18, 2011 at 02:27 AM in Blogs & Blogging,  Economics & Finance,  That Question Again,  White Nationalism
Comments (79) | Tell-a-Friend

Obama-Osama drama

The discussion, at MR, of two recent significant events—Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Osama’s death—has been unproductive, needlessly acrimonious and otherwise lackluster.  I tried to remedy the situation by leaving a comment as “Try critical thinking,” but it wasn’t of any help.  Thus I must now awaken from my slumber and post on the significance of these events, which in my estimation are opportune for leading some fence sitters and naïve individuals into the light.  Naturally, Amren, Vdare, Sailer et al. won’t adequately address them.  The issues are sufficiently important for me to mull making this a sticky post.

It’s difficult to avoid enemy infiltration, especially in an open forum, but civility may result if the discussion is primarily fact-based and detractors exhorted to reciprocate.

So here we go.

Continued...

Posted by J Richards on Friday, May 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM in 9/11,  Media,  That Question Again
Comments (27) | Tell-a-Friend

When Haters Define Hate

by Alexander Baron

Imagine the following scenario; your nineteen year old daughter, the apple of your eye, announces with great fanfare that she has met the man of her dreams, and she’d like to bring him home to meet you and your good lady wife. You’re a bit surprised, because she has been a slow starter, but at the same time you are pleased. Yes, of course, you say, when? You arrange for her to bring home her first real boyfriend that weekend, and resist the temptation to ask her anything about him, like how old is he, what does he do for a living, etc. You trust in your daughter, she’s been raised correctly rather than politically correctly, and you know she doesn’t hang around with glue sniffers, junkies, binge drinkers or other undesirables.

The day comes, and you are sitting in the living room, laptop on knee, catching up with some paperwork, when the door opens, and your wife walks in. She is deathly pale. “John”, she says, “Susan is here with…him”.

You hadn’t heard the doorbell, but she has a key, and you were so engrossed in what you were doing that probably you wouldn’t have heard it ring in any case. Now though you are suddenly alert; there is something in your wife’s demeanour that warns you all is not well in the State of Denmark, and that very soon you are going to find out what.

You put aside the laptop, and as you stand up your daughter enters the room holding hands with…him.

You are confused, what day is it? June 1st, not April 1st.

“Daddy,” she beams, “this is Angus, and guess what, we’re engaged.”

This cannot be, you look at the guy, he’s white, but so is his hair. In fact he is not a day under eighty years old. You look at your wife, and smile uneasily. She shakes her head indicating that this is indeed not some sort of joke; your pride and joy really has brought home this old codger, and that what she says is true, they are indeed engaged.

How would you react? How would any parent react? You can’t be serious, my sweet. But she is. But he’s ... old. So are you, Daddy. But he’s older than me. Jesus Christ, he’s older than my father.
Can this be age-ism? Are you really so narrow-minded and bigotted? No.

What has age-ism to do with this sad state of affairs? Do you hate old people? Do you hate you own father? Do people usually hate their own grandparents, or anyone’s grandparents just because they are old?

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, April 22, 2011 at 08:39 AM in That Question Again
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

Finkelstein defies the waterworks

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 06:00 PM in That Question Again
Comments (28) | Tell-a-Friend

Fun with Jews

Continuing my present passage of discourse war at the Telegraph, I am pleased to say a debate about the Holocaust has finally come about.  Some Jews are unhappy with me.  Would you credit it?

It is in the thread to a piece by some old soldier who bears the distinction of having broken into Auschwitz III.  He observes that:

The Jewish workers from Auschwitz III camp, sometimes called Monowitz, were expected to die on the job.

... which I think is right.  He talks about the “sweet, ghastly smell” from the crematoria of Auschwitz II, but only mentions gas chambers in terms of rumours. “I was disappointed with what I had learned from one trip,” he says at the end.

We are still waiting to learn.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, March 19, 2011 at 08:43 PM in That Question Again
Comments (31) | Tell-a-Friend

A challenge to all genuine skeptics from a Holocaust revisionist

by Alexander Baron

This is a challenge to all genuine skeptics who, unlike Michael Shermer, are prepared to confront Holocaust Revisionism with both an open mind and objectivity.

A brief introduction is necessary; I have been a Holocaust skeptic for a shade over thirty years, and a dedicated Revisionist since the 1990s. I have published two full length books on the so-called Holocaust, both of which can be downloaded free. (1)  I have also published a number of pamphlets and articles from a pro-Revisionist perspective. (2)

Eleven years ago I published a critique of Michael Shermer’s methodology, to which he did not deign to respond, or if he did, I didn’t hear about it. In my critique I alluded to the testimony of the Polish Jewess Sophia Litwinska regarding the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz. This short dissertation is concerned both with her testimony and the evidence of another Jewess, Regina Bialek. It is my belief that any honest skeptic who confronts the testimony of these two vitally important witnesses will of necessity develop serious doubts about the existence of both the alleged Nazi extermination programme, and the veracity of all the claims made by other witnesses concerning the use of homicidal gas chambers to exterminate people en masse in any of the alleged Nazi extermination camps.

As confirmed skeptics I ask you to respond only with rational, clearly thought out, and logical arguments. Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority or to emotion, hysteria, innuedo, name calling, righteous indignation, shaming language, smears with guilt by association, or simple ridicule, do not constitute rational argument, and are no substitute for it.

If you are able to refute the arguments I advance here, I await your response. If however you are not able to refute them, then common decency not to mention your professed commitment to historical and scientific truth demand that you acknowledge both that I am right, and that Shermer is wrong.

At the four links immediately below you will find four PDF files; these contain two documents. I had intended to combine them into one, but the smaller sizes make them easier to load, and you will if you wish be able to view two or more pages simultaneously easily with this layout.

WO 235/13, page 169
WO 235/13, page 172
WO 235/14, page 108
WO 235/14, page 109

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 09:22 PM in That Question Again
Comments (38) | Tell-a-Friend

My dog-eared history of the h-word

In 1975, when I turned twenty-four, I finally gave up the process of transforming perfectly innocent family cars into tortured scraps of metal and determined instead to pursue a career as a writer of some sort.  My parents were so pleased by this life-saving decision that they immediately bestowed upon me a portable typewriter, a Collins English Dictionary, and a Roget’s Thesaurus.  I’m not still clattering away at the keys of the typewriter.  But the dictionary and the Thesaurus I do still possess.

The Collins is the 1972 edition and, interestingly, this is its entry for a certain word beginning with “h”:

holo- (holo’-o) a combining form, fr, Gk. holos whole. Used in many derivatives,—holocaust (hol’-o-kawst) n. a burnt offering, the whole of being consumed by fire; hence wholesome sacrifice, destruction or slaughter

Notice anything missing?  Well, language evolves, as we all know, and with the wonder of the internet dictionaries go on-line.  Here is the on-line offering from Collins today:

holocaust
n

1. destruction or loss of life on a massive scale,

2. the Holocaust mass murder of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis (1940–45)
Greek holos whole + kaiein to burn

My dog-eared Roget is undateable since the front cover and fly page went missing I know not when.  But the index is still complete and lists the same two general definitions for the h-word, directing my attention to entry 991 for idolatry and 361 for killing, in that order.  The latter lists twenty-seven substantives for the act of killing, one of which is holocaust.

But like the Collins, Roget is also available today online, and lists thirteen much more lurid synonyms for holocaust.  So under mass extermination we find:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, January 29, 2011 at 07:59 PM in That Question Again
Comments (113) | Tell-a-Friend

Abstract

Today I came across a curious study from the current issue of Nature.  It is none too pithily titled “Inbred decorated crickets exhibit higher measures of macroparasitic immunity than outbred individuals” and, as the name suggests, it is about these delicate little critters:

The jerusalem cricket

The abstract informs us that:

Inbreeding is assumed to have negative effects on fitness, including the reduced ability to withstand immune challenges. We examined the immunological consequences of inbreeding in decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus, by comparing lytic activity, phenoloxidase (PO) activity, and encapsulation ability of crickets from eight inbred lines with that of crickets from the outbred founder population. Surprisingly, crickets from inbred lines had a greater encapsulation ability compared with crickets from the outbred population. We suggest that because inbred crickets have reduced reproductive effort, they may, therefore, have the option of devoting more resources to this form of immunity than outbred individuals.

But that’s not very interesting.  Something like this would be more appropriate:

Endogamy in European populations is frequently implied by hostile ethnic actors to be a producer of inbreeding depression.  Such depression might be expected to include a reduced immunological response to hostile minorities seeking control of the population’s destiny.  We compared immunological response in eight highly inter-related, monoracial populations with that in multiracial populations where exogamy is high.  Not surprisingly, members of the monoracial populations displayed greater levels of tradition, self-awareness and ethnocentrism.  We suggest that these are the immunological conditions from which said hostile minorities, in misrepresenting endogamy to their hosts, seek to free themselves. 

Further, we suggest that endogamy and, therefore, relatedness should be the guiding principle of all European populations in which discussions rage over how to deal with minorities.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 08:38 PM in That Question Again
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend

If at first you don’t succeed

This gentleman is Yevhen Alfredovych Chervonenko.  He is a minister in the Ukrainian government and a former mayor of Kiev.  He is, it appears, also a Jew.

In the video below, he is haranguing patriotic Ukrainians, large numbers of whom, it turns out, do not want to be immigrated to hell, and even fail to label a Ukrainian Ukraine as “Nazi”.  He does, of course.

The Nazism issue arose because a poll for a live TV debate addressing immigration asked respondees to choose from three labels to describe the desire to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians: “nationalism”, “patriotism” or “Nazism”.  The vast majority in both the east and west of the country chose “patriotism”, much to Chervonenko’s displeasure.

No one in the audience made the obvious historical connection.

Canadian readers might suck their teeth a little at the sight of native Ukrainians rejecting immigration.  But that’s only one more argument for the nationalist state.

I should just add that in his bio Chervonenko is described as a former racing driver.  But he seems only to have been a navigator in “international rallying” during the 80s (meaning buzzing about behind the Iron Curtain in Moskvitches and Ladas that must have been as chuckable as a blind stoat in a thunder storm).  Now, I have nothing against stoats, and nothing but admiration for navigators.  But I’m not sure that the boundless steppe requires quite the navigational sang froid as, say, the Ouninpohja.  Still, the man has chutspah.  There’s no denying that.

Hat tip to Green Arrow for airing the video.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 16, 2010 at 05:53 PM in That Question Again
Comments (211) | Tell-a-Friend

Balder the Sturdy on freedom of speech and the French-Jewish philospher Bernard-Henri Lévy

The following is the opening only of a mammoth riposte to Jewish hate speech activism, originally published by Balder at Balder-org.  Read the whole post there.

“It’s a great privilege to introduce Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy, who really is one of the most forthright, and one of the bravest ehm, spokesman for freedom of speech, here or anywhere, and eh, he will close this with a few minutes of, closing statement.”

With these words, the editor of the American newspaper ‘The New Yorker’, David Remnick, introduced a closing speech by the French/Jewish philosopher, which ended a, at this point, one hour and 20 minutes long debate at Columbia University about freedom of speech, among a panel consisting of 5 people and a studio audience.

Bernard-Henri Lévy - Deniers of the ‘olocost must be punished “all over the world.”
He thinks words can kill.

The discussion was hosted on January 26, 2010 by the Columbia-Paris Alliance Program and SIPA, in collaboration with the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism.  Panel members were: David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker (Jewish - moderator), Bernard-Henri Lévy, Author and French/Jewish Philosopher, Philippe Schmidt, Chairman of INACH and Vice-President of LICRA (Jewish), Professor Kent Greenawalt, Columbia Law School, Peter Awn, Director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute.

Contents (roughly - if you want to skip some of my rants):

Transscript of statements by Henri-Bernard Lévi
Transscript of short statement by Professor Kent Greenawald
Other participants
Go to the bottom of Balder’s original post for the full video, split into 23 segments

THE ‘OLOCAUST (& other genocides)

Before he delivered his expected grand finale, Mr. Bernard-Henri Lévy the famous French/Jewish philosopher, dedicated much of several his long-winded drawn out speeches, defending why some phenomenon he chose to call ‘holocaust-denial’, should be the only exception to freedom of speech. He quickly included “other genocides”.

The reason he gave, was in my view, more an expression of chutzpah, pilpul, or Jewish double speak, than a confirmation of the popular myth that Jews, and especially “French/Jewish philosophers”, are endowed with a greater than average intelligence.

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 at 07:06 PM in That Question Again
Comments (25) | Tell-a-Friend

Not much ado about anything

I paid a return visit to the BNP section of British Democracy Forum today.  This section, with the Griffin-hating Nationalists Online and its antithesis, the nauseatingly loyal Home of the Green Arrow, is the mainstay of British Nationalist chatter on the net.

What I found on my visit to BDF today was a thread titled Definition of britishness? - your aims & goals which had been begun on 1st May by a lady named Valentina (whoops, Katerina).  She turns out to be an inquisitive Jew, which hardly surprised given that she served up a picture of British Nationalism as Nazism with, of course, a heavy helping of Holosauce on the side.  On page 8 of the thread I offered a novel corrective (using the name of a character from a treasured British film comedy of my childhood).

I wish I could say that the result was a passionate and dangerous, liberating exploration of the issue of ownership of discourse.  But no matter how I spelt it out, neither British nor Jewish Nationalist would take up the challenge.  All that happened, basically, was that the owner of BDF advised me through the in-house mail system:

You have received an infraction at British Democracy Forum.

Reason: Signature Rule Violation

The offence was “dragging threads off topic with your tedious Jew bashing.”

I wonder, sometimes, whether even nationalists (or nominal nationalists, at any rate) are too insensate to their own captivity to recognise the distant, weak light of freedom.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 07:27 PM in That Question Again
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of Jews

by Alexander Baron

Occasionally in my life I have experienced a revealed truth, usually nothing very profound. In January 1986, I experienced one which led me to renounce alcohol, literally there and then. On April 23, 2010, I experienced another one.

I was doing some shopping in Sydenham, and called in at the Iranian store on the way home; one of the things I wanted to buy was a packet of noodles; I’d bought one there the previous day, but couldn’t find it in the kitchen, so figured I must have left it in the store. This was indeed the case, because the old guy who served me pointed this out, and as he bagged up the replacement with my loaf of bread told me to get another packet and he’d only charge me for the one.

Okay, it’s only a little thing, not even half a quid, but he didn’t have to bother. I looked at him, he was somewhat older than me, and unlike me, almost certainly not childless. I thought he must have grandkids, probably living in Iran. Then I thought of this man, below. Looks uphappy, doesn’t he? Wanna know why he looks so unhappy?

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, June 18, 2010 at 10:22 AM in That Question Again
Comments (94) | Tell-a-Friend

The Enthymeme Of Jewish History

by Alexander Baron

It has often been said that one picture is worth a thousand words. The picture below contains seventy-six words, but is surely worth a million, indeed it is, with few exceptions, worth all the words ever written by establishment historians – Jew and Gentile – about Jewish history. Misspellings and typos included – “On July what 1946” ? – because it sums up the only acceptable view of two thousand years of hatred, intolerance, suffering and persecution: It is all your fault, you wicked goyim.

For those who are not au fait with the atrocity commemorated by the photographed plaque, or with the circumstances that led up to it, a little background is necessary. When he came to power, Adolf Hitler instituted a legalised persecution of German Jews. This is not a dissertation on Revisionist History, so let us simply accept that within the framework of Nazi Germany’s increasingly repressive legislation, the majority of German Jews were stripped of their political and social influence, purged from the professions, and encouraged to leave the country. One may argue about the morality or otherwise of this legislation and persecution, but no reasonable person may question the fact that it happened. Nor may any reasonable person question the fact that with the outbreak of the Second World War -  a war which if he didn’t actually start, Hitler did much to precipitate – many Jews were interned as enemy aliens, and/or deported to the East.

Although this was not a war fought solely or even principally at the behest of “the Jews” or for Jewish interests, it was considered a just, even a righteous war, so Jews who had emigrated to Britain and America (which came in after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor) might have been expected to demonstrate their loyalty to the Crown and to Uncle Sam. Most of them did, most, but by no means all. As early as April 1938, the Irgun terror group in Palestine murdered two British police officers. On August 27, 1939, literally days before the start of the Second World War, two British officers were murdered when a mine exploded in Jerusalem.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, May 9, 2010 at 06:36 PM in That Question Again
Comments (12) | Tell-a-Friend

Don’t even use a question mark in Hungary

From yesterday’s The Jerusalem Post:

Hungary passes Holocaust denial bill

BUDAPEST— Hungary’s parliament on Monday approved a bill making Holocaust denial punishable by up to three years in prison, but the measure may be unconstitutional.

Lawmakers passed the bill submitted by Attila Mesterhazy, the prime ministerial candidate of the governing Socialist Party, by 197-1, with 142 abstentions.

Earlier attempts to ban Holocaust denial have been rejected by the courts for infringing on freedom of speech. Efforts to modify the Constitution to ensure the bill’s legality have also failed.

Mesterhazy’s proposal was backed by the Socialists and most of the Alliance of Free Democrats, a former coalition partner. Most members of Fidesz, the main center-right opposition party, and their allies, the Christian Democrats, abstained after Fidesz’s wish to also include the denial of Nazi and Communist crimes in the bill was rejected.

Free Democrat Gabor Horn, who voted in favor of the bill, questioned the timing of the Socialists’ proposal and wondered why a similar effort by his own party a few months ago was not accepted.

“The difference is that six months ago there was no campaign,” Horn said.

... Hate speech and incitement to violence against minorities is already a crime in Hungary, but Monday’s bill adds “denying, questioning or making light of the Holocaust” to the penal code.

In mentioning the forthcoming general election in Hungary the report at least acknowledges that Jobbik is “expected to easily clear the five percent threshold needed to enter parliament.”  So something not to the Jewish taste is afoot there, at least.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 at 08:01 PM in That Question Again
Comments (8) | Tell-a-Friend