Cosmic ants and a few fragmentary thoughts in answer to maguire
In the thread to the recent JW post on immigration and the GOP, I rashly asserted that, “My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle for a survivalist ethos, informed by European sociobiological needs and leavened by a light touch in the areas of personal and economic freedom.”
Even more rashly, I then invited all-comers to attack this assertion. The invitation was accepted by the sturdy maguire who demanded, “a serviceable definition of this at this point in history.”
As luck would have it, I am too intellectually challenged to do serviceable. But here’s an unserviceable one for all sufferers of insomnia.
The political change required to address the crisis in the West lies on the scale of the revolutionary.
There is nothing new in this statement, extraordinary and disconcerting though it might at first seem to the conventional mind. The long journey out of thinking that our persecutor is “the left” or “the state” - or, indeed, “Islam” or “immigration” - undoes all faith in electoral solutions and inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is the putting away of causal simplicities and the beginning of political adulthood, of thinking in terms of scale.
At the same time, the purposive side of the equation - the “Great Question” of what we are to do - simplifies and tends in one of two broad directions, either:-
a) A collective spiritual renewal centred on a sacralisation of the folk,
or
b) a materialist approach serving the birthright of our sons and daughters.
It would be fair to say that the Revolutionary Conservatives or Traditionalists and the philosophers of the European New Right are grouped in the first category, and with them the Fascists and National Socialists of 20th Century Europe – notwithstanding the Nazis’ somewhat self-justifying ventures into racial science.
It would be entirely fair to say that present-day European political nationalism and American White Nationalism are grouped in the second category, albeit sometimes with longing sideways glances at the Speeresque glories of Nuremberg.
Of course, a cynical observer might conclude that the first group deals in ideas without too many facts, and the second in facts without any ideas. I am a such a cynic, but also a member of the second group. As such, for me the Great Materialist Question is: how can the gold standard of our children’s birthright be restored to its place at the centre of our collective life? Back comes the revolutionary answer, totally unambiguous: only by dissolving and washing away the corrupted liberalism, the universalism, internationalism, Jewish ethnocentric aggression and naked elitist power-mongering that are the authors of our fate.
At this point, of course, the scale of the challenge rises out of the mists like the most precipitous and brooding Alpine peak, upon whose glassy cliff-faces our purchase is perilous. Or worse.
It spites the obvious, then, to say that as a political contest this is a mismatch. So what are we to do, powerless, maligned and marginalised as we are? The only thing we can do, of course, since retreat back into twilight, to abandoning our children’s birthright, is not an option:-
We develop an appropriate strategy.
We materialists are not without strengths that the placemen and priesthood of liberalism don’t possess. It is difficult to say which is the greatest of these. For one is Truth, another Nature and the third Justice. A man who is in possession of the truth and who speaks justly to his brother’s nature, to common loves and loyalties, is not without strength. Somewhere in the privacy of his own heart he might even fancy that nothing, no worldly authority, can withstand such primal power indefinitely. And he might be right.
At least, this is the basis of my faith, if that’s what it is, that for now it is enough to speak. And here, of course, I mean “discourse” of a type calculated to attract the attention of intellectuals - not the sort of knockabout stuff required to motivate an army of activists.
Not that I decry populism and activism, and not that it isn’t time for them. Far from it. Popularising practical means by which our people can live in their own skins and recover some racial autonomy - even wriggle out a little from under the machinery of state - is essential and an unalloyed good. Were such methods to wind up hitting tax receipts and electoral legitimation, that would be even better.
But the Men of the West are not going to take down their rifles from the hook behind the farmstead door and march, hearts filled with righteousness, up the steps of the Capital Building. Their struggle is local and immediate to each individual. Even in the aggregate it does not amount to anything like a philosophically literate reply to liberalism. In this respect, the highest to which activism can ever aspire is to be part of some wider, distinct political philosophy – actually an expression of that philosophy. And that is the way forward. That is the way to replace traitorous government and the bestial system of political, cultural, business and financial elites which it serves.
The Beast itself is a symbiosis of power and ideas. The lower parts of its body, the musculature and bone of its legs and feet, are composed of earnest little believers in the nostrums of economic and egalitarian liberalism. In their tens and hundreds of thousands they struggle and squirm in their chosen directions, sometimes cancelling out one another’s efforts.
The upper portions of the body are quite free of such boorish concern. No arguments for Gay Rights, no encouragements to snout-in-the-trough capitalism circulate among its golden paternalists and superannuated geopoliticians without, somewhere, a superior smile, a dismissive wave affirming the order of things. For these are the addicts and dealers in the purest grades of power, and no drug is more prized there. The higher one raises up oneself to observe the Beast, the more raw and uncut with ideology is the power one encounters.
One need not raise oneself to especially dizzy heights for that, by the way:-
We are in a period of considerable social change. There will be unrest, but we can cope with the Toxteths … but if we have a highly educated and idle population we may possibly anticipate more serious conflict. People must be educated once more to know their place.
Department of Education official in a leaked secret report, 1983
And he’s only a civil servant high on Actonite. But he’s talking in the Beast’s native tongue. Further up – near, say, the cerebellum – the view seems to be not of “people”at all, even little ones, but of distant, scurrying worker ants. But ... these are ants with a cosmic purpose. Every four or five years they are needed to vote. And in any structure where power is, nominally at least, legitimised by democratic consent rather than naked force, they are not possible to entirely ignore. They have to be humoured, cultivated, kept sedated with shiny gewgaws and deep in debt.
Among them are ants of good, even high intellect whom, for one reason or another, the system did not see fit to co-opt. Some, it’s true, just couldn’t be co-opted at all. A matter of constitution
The beautiful, ironic thing is that the rigid system of political interpretation and information control out of which consent is manufactured drives more and more of these six-legged creatures into dissidence everyday. The best and most independent-minded, most original thinkers do not desire to have their opinions prescribed for them by a self-interested Establishment. Much less do they desire their sensibilities to be prescribed by a vile, anti-racist commissariat. They are perfectly capable of finding in the moral boo-words the need to construct a simplified rhetoric to evade complex discussion. They are perfectly capable of finding in the political trials and imprisonments a need to repress and terrorise those who, nonetheless, insist on complexity. They are perfectly entitled to follow Kant’s definition of Enlightenment as freedom “from self-incurred tutelage” and the goal of any modern society as the educated mind. And in that we can be of some assistance.
These dissidents, be they present or future, are our highest-value audience. Here we stand, equipped with our three argumentational virtues: Truth, Nature and Justice. We have to communicate them in the hope that we will be heard by as many good men as possible.
As I noted earlier, there are really only two philosophical models that we can speak about, each of them revolutionary in action. One begins in the quest for the spiritual race. But it ends in binding the people firmly to the mast of ethnic interest, for which purpose the supremacy of party or state over the individual serves.
During his early involvement with the party he would lead, Adolf Hitler sought to rename it the Social Revolutionary Party. It was an apt if unexciting name. All revolutions require crisis, and Germany had crisis in abundance - ethnic, political, social and economic. Crisis legitimates, necessitates, precipitates. All the emergency provisions, radical transformations and, usually, stern legal sanctions against members of the former regime which typify sudden and absolute political change are justified by crisis. Thus, after the Reichstag fire in 1933 the Nazis succeeded to government and embarked with formidable decisiveness upon the legislative process of Gleichschaltung. By summer 1934 one as good as lived or died by the will of the Party.
Now, the debate as to whether the “German Heavy Model”, as Alex Linder has called it, can be applied in some form in the 21st Century liberal West is legitimate. The crisis is here and now, and deepening every day. Even a National Socialism in its militarised, bouncing-into-Vienna, Final-Solution form is preferable to me than the loss of Europeans from Western Europe. If those were the only two options I would leap into the fray with a will, with all the consequences that might entail. But they are not, and the recoil from 1945 is such that the crisis will need to be very extreme and civil war probably inevitable before the German Heavy Model could be brought back to the centre of political life. I prefer to try to look for a kinder and more bearable future for our children.
So we come to the only alternative: one or other variation on the “Light English Model”, materialist in its view of Man and race, practical and anti-ideological in its political application, but still revolutionary.
The “light” in the English Model consists in a rare tolerance of the individual. But this is not the unfettered will deifed in the religion of liberalism, and not the atomised, purely self-interested actor of the “Conservative right” (which is also liberalism). No, the implicit understanding is that Man, if left free to pursue his own interests, will devotedly pursue his ethnic genetic interests. He does not need to be “educated” as to what they are or how to do it. He is the best judge of that already, as a fish is the best judge of how to swim and a bird to fly. To reconnect with his ethnic genetic interests he only needs the blinding light of liberalism to be switched OFF.
In that event also, he would quickly prove able to protect all the secondary interests he holds in common with his people: their territory, traditions, culture. The normal, healthy bonds of life that satisfied his forefathers would delight and satisfy him also. Human beings are cast from that mold, and the mold does not decay. For all its power and longevity and all the damage to organic society it has wrought, liberalism has not changed European Man so much that the only thing he can do is to destroy his own life and loves. He is like a compass needle beside which a magnet was once placed (by whom is not the subject of this essay). Take it away and he will re-centre himself on his ethnic genetic interests with the same certainty that the needle, freed of local distortion, returns faithfully to magnetic north. It may take some time. But it will be.
It should be obvious from the above that the individualism of the Light English Model is oriented towards the collective. Ethnic genetic interests are collective. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand the Model as every bit as much a social movement as any other. The collective ties are Nature’s binding. No National Socialist hands bind Man to the mast here. There is no need for the militarisation of society, no need for the mythification of a golden age, no need for torchlight, no need for a confected aryan “honour” nor lives of “glory”. The spiritual race is only an idea, an invention - exciting perhaps, inspiring even. But it does not exist in the material sense. Ethnic genetic interests do. They will express themselves, given the clearing away of any obstructions. And that’s what the Light English Model does.
As you may have guessed, it has another name that seems to offend nationalist sensibilities in America:-
By conservative, of course, I mean: acting from and for what is good in us. Its political partner is Conservatism with a capital “C”. In my odd little meaning, that’s not only the name of a British political party ... but of an alternative zeitgeist that should allow us to live as we must - as stable, self-loving, free and loyal European peoples sovereign in our lands. As I understand it here, Conservatism ... is the singular political expression of our particular nature.
Names don’t really matter. Nature matters, and Truth and Justice ... and any cosmic ants that happen across this, even for me, odd little article. I wonder what maguire will think.
Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 08:26 PM in Political Philosophy
Comments (158) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Posted by J Richards on June 26, 2007, 07:08 PM | #
Reader,
When I told Linder to take a cue, in part, from Judicial Index, I didn’t imply that Judicial Index is 100% right, but that if Linder wanted to get more people wake up to Zionist malfeasance, then he would be best advised to come up with something like Judicial Index (JI) or “I am the witness” site.
I know that JI has problems with spelling, not extensively sourcing evidence and sometimes not distinguishing factual information from what is best described as either highly likely or a reasonable possibility. However, the site offers a lot of good information.
I am going to consider some of the points you brought up in reference to the JI pages linked to in your comment.
William Jefferson: Jewish businessmen had been buying up New Orleans property prior to the hurricane. It certainly wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for them to blow up the levees in order to drive blacks out and subsequently improve their property values. Neither would it be unusual for Zionists to go after anyone who wanted a proper investigation of the mysterious collapse of the levees. Therefore, JI is on to something, but the problem is that it has not been presenting the issue as a likely possibility but more along the lines of a fact.
Bill White: Bill White shows no physical signs of Jewish ancestry? What is this? Haven’t you seen hook-nosed whites and straight-nosed Jews? Haven’t you seen pale and light-haired Jews? Ashkenazi Jews as a group can be distinguished from whites as a group, but there is overlap between the groups. More importantly, JI says, “Bill White may well be a self-hating Jew...” JI questions whether Bill white is a genuine Nazi/white supremacist or a fake one, and JI presents a lot of reasonable evidence suggesting that Bill White is a fake Nazi.
Winston Churchill: Apart from the page you pointed out, there are two others that you did not cite: this and this on Churchill’s maternal grandfather. JI makes a reasonable case for part-Jewish ancestry of Churchill, whereas you make a statement without citing any evidence.
Paris Hilton: You have presented no evidence against JI’s evidence for part-Jewish ancestry of Paris Hilton.
Reade Seligmann/Nifong/Duke rape case: Photoshopping of Seligmann’s nose is not obvious. Once again, your statement about no physical evidence of Jewish ancestry in Finnerty is useless, and not all three of them have to be Jewish in full or part. The interesting thing about the Duke case that JI points out is that the alleged victim was offered $2 million early on to drop the charges. Why? Perhaps there is more to the Duke case that what appears to be the obvious conclusion that the mainstream media would have us believe. The problem with JI is that it doesn’t present the Duke case as food for thought but takes a definitive atypical stance on it.
I am also going to address some of your other claims. Should “I am the witness” site’s (IAW) credibility be questioned because it links to JI? Does linking to a site imply endorsing all of the linked site’s contents? If so, then I believe MR has no credibility either, and why did you even bother leaving a comment?
Your link to the “Wolves in Sheep’s clothing” article on Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn at the PC-Apostate site suggests that you are either a Zionist agent or an ignoramus/fool. Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn have been exposing Zionist crimes without espousing anything approaching white supremacism, white nationalism or Nazism. You will learn more about the Holocaust hoax from Eric Hufschmid and more about the people responsible for 9-11 at the IAW site within a short amount of time than you would by extensively perusing the archives/books of David Duke, the mass of genuine/fake Neo-Nazi websites out there and most 9-11 truth websites. Zionists are not going to let Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn easily get away with it. The ridiculous and blatantly absurd PC-Apostate article is one example of Zionist smear; the wiki you pointed out is another such example. Bollyn has already been persecuted for his efforts at exposing the Zionist involvement behind 9-11. The Zionists sent plainclothes police officers after him, who beat and tasered him, and then charged him with aggravated assault and resisting arrest, and he was subsequently convicted of both. Interestingly, almost all “9-11 truthers” ignored Bollyn’s trial and conviction.
If you are not a Zionist agent, then I hope you realize that since Zionists do not control the internet, they will attempt the next best thing: set up an extensive number of disinformation websites that extensively link to each other to end up high in Google searches. These websites will, among other things, smear the likes of Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn, who are not merely coming up with “weird conspiracy theories,” but backing up what they are saying with extensive evidence. Daniel J’s attitude, considering everyone with any weight to be a potential Zionist agent, is a healthy skeptical attitude.
It should be obvious that Linder is going to much more effectively wake up the public to Zionist malfeasance if he sets up a site like JI or IAW rather than what he has come up with.
Posted by TG on June 26, 2007, 07:08 PM | #
["That’s the thing: if AmRen were set up by jews as a front group, how would it differ from what we see at AmRen today?”
Posted by Alex Linder on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 02:08 AM ]
From the way I see it, AR is just another PC philosemitic money making operation that has had ZERO impact on reversing the direction our society has headed.
Other than JT’s book “Paved With Good Intentions” can anyone name another accomplishment AR has provided? The moderators at the AR web-site must have went through the Simon Wiesenthal center’s tolerance training? They certainly censure anything that even hints of any allegation that Jews are the proximate cause for the ongoing White genocide. AR is becoming as PC as the MSM.
Posted by ben tillman on June 26, 2007, 08:28 PM | #
“The interesting thing about the Duke case that JI points out is that the alleged victim was offered $2 million early on to drop the charges. “
And this is the point. There is no evidence of such an offer.
Posted by danielj on June 26, 2007, 08:41 PM | #
Regarding the Duke Case and Judicial Inc.:
I guess the question is whether or not one should believe the source…
A bunch of angro Afros with axes to grind… The way the paint the stripper/hooker in this story is as a downright “angel” whilst including the “fact” that black leaders and the stripper all turned down considerable sums of money because they were more concerned with “justice”
So, the issue isn’t whether or not he (Mr. Judicial) has sources because he certainly does, but which sources to believe.
Just be skeptical of everyone.
Posted by jlh on June 26, 2007, 08:46 PM | #
Scimitar writes:
“Meanwhile, in the North, whites in New England and the Midwest spent the late nineteenth century repealing their anti-miscegenation laws and outlawing segregation in education, housing, and employment. By 1900, this task had largely been completed; around the same time Jews from Eastern and Southern Europe began arriving in the North in significant numbers.”
How does your claim that the work of desegregating and de-Jim Crowifying Northern cities was accomplished by 1900 square with this account of the riots in Rochester in 1964, which I lived through? While readers here may disagree with the point of view of the following link, we can discern that something very remote from desegregation was going on. The facts are that regardless of laws passed, the situation on the ground was that blacks were confined to ghettoes, and most whites liked it that way, even if they gave lip service to liberal ideals.
Posted by J Richards on June 26, 2007, 09:51 PM | #
Ben Tillman,
So you are telling me that the allegation of the 2 million offer is a complete fabrication? How do you know? Once again, I have faulted JI for not portraying the issue as a possibility but presenting it as fact, but if Jews are involved, an otherwise-wild possibility could very well be true. If I had to bet my money, I’d go with the mainstream conclusion, but cannot discount JI’s stance without better knowledge of the case.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on June 26, 2007, 10:58 PM | #
“War is war- there are no rules in such a circumstance.”
Typical Anglo hypocrisy on display. I would have more sympathy for this position if we didn’t have to endure the spectacle of the Nuremberg kangaroo trials at the end of W.W. II.
“Reduced to an individual level, your implied argument would look like this: Jorg punches John in the face. John responds by smashing Jorg’s head in with a wrench. Jorg says “Why did you smash my head in - I only punched you in the face?”
A fight is a fight. One isn’t obliged to respond in kind once attacked.”
Wrong again. The proportionality principle in warfare dates back to at least Saint Thomas Aquinas.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm
I’ll let others judge your utterly vicious stance.
Posted by reader on June 26, 2007, 11:16 PM | #
J. Richards,
I didn’t imply that Judicial Index is 100% right, but that if Linder wanted to get more people wake up to Zionist malfeasance, then he would be best advised to come up with something like Judicial Index (JI) or “I am the witness” site.
Obviously, they’ve convinced you. But I don’t think these sites are convincing to people whose critical thinking skills are intact.
William Jefferson: Gee, it’s just so hard to believe a negro politician, in Louisiana of all places, would accept a bribe. Clearly this must be another case of persecution by Zionists.
I have no problem with people who speculate about possible “Zionist” conspiracies, if that’s where the evidence points. In this case, the real explanation is likely the simpler one: Jefferson did what he is accused of.
Likewise, New Orleans blacks are not especially intelligent, and people should not be accused of being Jews for noticing this.
In general, people should not be called Jews or “Zionist agents” for failing to get on board with goofy conspiracy theories backed by flimsy, non-existent, or made-up evidence.
Haven’t you seen pale and light-haired Jews?
Yea, it’s just so easy to mistake Barbra Streisand and Gene Wilder for Europeans.
Ashkenazi Jews as a group can be distinguished from whites as a group, but there is overlap between the groups.
Yes, and most of the overlap is between jewier-looking whites and whiter-looking Jews. I have never met an Ashkenazi, or even a half-Ashkenazi, who looks like Colin Finnerty or Bill White.
Churchill: Leonard Jerome was born on a farm in upstate New York in 1817. Rural upstate New York in this time frame was not overrun with Jews, to say the least. It’s rather difficult to believe Leonard Jerome moved to Sweden, changed his name to Jacobson, and then re-immigrated to America in 1842.
Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn’t make it true.
No reputable historical or genealogical source links the family of Jennie Jerome to Jews or to the name Jacobson. It’s up to you and judicial-inc to prove a Jewish link if you think one exists. Copying-and-pasting internet commentary does not suffice.
Paris Hilton: You have presented no evidence against JI’s evidence for part-Jewish ancestry of Paris Hilton.
Hahaha. What evidence?
Her parents are involved in real estate, and we all know only Jews can do real estate? That sounds like something that would come from the mind of a Jew. (On another page, judicial-inc claims 95% of Chicago futures traders are Jews.) She was friends with the daughter of “Jew” Robert Kardashian? (Kardashian is Armenian, obviously. Yes, we should be getting all our information on “Zionists” from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a Jew and an Armenian.)
Please learn to think.
Reade Seligmann/Nifong/Duke rape case: Photoshopping of Seligmann’s nose is not obvious.
I didn’t mention the nose, specifically. But, since you noticed it, apparently it is obvious.
I’m not sure what to say to the rest or your response on this issue. The fact that you’ve brought up judicial-inc’s repeating an unbelievable claim by the false accuser’s cousin to support your case leaves me speechless.
I encourage anyone who wants to know the facts about the Duke lacrosse case to read Durham-in-Wonderland. You can read all about Jakki and Cash Michaels. Also, read the Attorney General’s report.
Then decide if you’d rather side with demonstrably innocent white kids who were smeared in the press, or with goofy negro and “anti-zionist” conspiracy theories.
Your link to the “Wolves in Sheep’s clothing” article on Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn at the PC-Apostate site suggests that you are either a Zionist agent or an ignoramus/fool.
Oh shit, I’ve been made.
I did not endorse either of the sites I linked to. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’d rather stay away from the Christian/"Patriot"/"anti-Zionist"/conspiracy theory types all together.
By the way, are you the webmaster of the feminine beauty site?
Posted by reader on June 27, 2007, 12:07 AM | #
Should “I am the witness” site’s (IAW) credibility be questioned because it links to JI? Does linking to a site imply endorsing all of the linked site’s contents?
If one credulously links to a page that contains incredible claims, one’s credibility is called into question.
And, yes, this extends to you. I will read anything you write more skeptically from now on, and carefully check any sources before accepting anything you write.
Posted by ben tillman on June 27, 2007, 12:34 AM | #
So you are telling me that the allegation of the 2 million offer is a complete fabrication? How do you know?
Like most things, this is hearsay to both of us. I might point to the lack of credibility of the sources. Cash Michaels is a race hustler with no credibility whatsoever. His source, Cousin Jakki, is discredited by the inclusion in her account of details that we know to be false, such as her claims of bruising to the stripper.
But more importantly, we know this to be false in the same way that we knew the falsity of the neocons’ insinuations that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11: the allegations make no sense in the context of other things we know about the world.
I could write much more here, but I’ll just make a couple wuick points. If the lacrosse players were Jewish, money would hardly be necessary to make the story go away. A couple phone calls from Ol’ Abe at the ADL would have calmed the press down. And, perhaps most obviously, if such an offer had been made, it would have been accepted.
Posted by ben tillman on June 27, 2007, 12:37 AM | #
“War is war- there are no rules in such a circumstance....”
Not necessarily.
“I would have more sympathy for this position if we didn’t have to endure the spectacle of the Nuremberg kangaroo trials at the end of W.W. II.”
Touché.
Posted by J Richards on June 27, 2007, 12:44 AM | #
Reader,
Obviously, they’ve convinced you.
The only thing that I am convinced about is that something along the lines of JI is needed but with more scholarly merit.
William Jefferson - Totally irrelevant/meaningless statement:
Likewise, New Orleans blacks are not especially intelligent, and people should not be accused of being Jews for noticing this.
Straw man:
In general, people should not be called Jews or “Zionist agents” for failing to get on board with goofy conspiracy theories backed by flimsy, non-existent, or made-up evidence.
Even JI wouldn’t call you the above, let alone me for not buying JI’s hypothesis about the Katrina-levee destruction (which I don’t endorse by the way, but would not rule out).
Jewish looks - I have known at least six Jews/part-Jewish individuals who are physically passable as Nordic white.
Churchill -
Copying-and-pasting internet commentary does not suffice.
Apparently, it suffices that we take your unreferenced comment at face value. I am not a historian and will not be looking up Churchill’s genealogy. JI has made its case; all you have done is mocked it.
Paris Hilton - Straw man:
Her parents are involved in real estate, and we all know only Jews can do real estate?..She was friends with the daughter of “Jew” Robert Kardashian?
Apart from your absurd portrayal of the points above, JI mentioned other issues such as the Jewish Zsa Zsa Gabor gandma, her attending an exclusive school catering to ultra rich individuals of Jewish heritage, etc.
Duke case -
I didn’t mention the nose, specifically. But, since you noticed it, apparently it is obvious.
What is obvious is that the person does not have a straight nose; it is not obvious that the hooked nose is due to photoshopping.
The fact that you’ve brought up judicial-inc’s repeating an unbelievable claim by the false accuser’s cousin to support your case leaves me speechless.
I am not buying this claim, but will not rule it out.
-------------------------
I did not endorse either of the sites I linked to.
I never implied that you endorse the sites, but you obviously endorse the core argument of the PC-Apostate article since you linked to it, pasted an excerpt and did not provide any qualifying statements expressing your reservations about its content. Anyone who has sufficiently read/listened to Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn will know right away that the PC-Apostate article is patent nonsense, obviously intended as smear and there is little doubt which quarters it is coming from.
The only site that I do some webmastering at is this site, not any “feminine beauty” site.
If one credulously links to a page that contains incredible claims, one’s credibility is called into question.
MR then has zero credibility from your perspective. Just take a look at the links section (left column).
I will read anything you write more skeptically from now on…
Why even bother reading it?
----------------------
Ben Tillman,
The Duke case was all over the news before the ADL could have stopped it if it had wanted to. Besides, in the very remote scenario that the accuser’s story is true, she could have rejected the 2 million offer for justice.
Posted by Re: "a reader and J Richards" on June 27, 2007, 12:51 AM | #
What is needed is for an organization (like National Policy Institute) of trained academics to fact-check, reference-check, or properly source the good material out there on Jews and Zionism, and perhaps websites and ancestry of webmasters as well (e.g. JI).
(The material thus is vouched for, unlike now where I must run to the libraries and databases to check the sources myself for otherwise I would not believe my eyes at the massive ongoing deception.)
This is costly but not difficult.
Posted by ben tillman on June 27, 2007, 01:14 AM | #
The Duke case was all over the news before the ADL could have stopped it if it had wanted to. Besides, in the very remote scenario that the accuser’s story is true, she could have rejected the 2 million offer for justice.
There is no “accuser’s story”. There is a series of stories that necessarily refute one another.
And look at your first sentence:
“The Duke case was all over the news before the ADL could have stopped it if it had wanted to.”—But if the ADL’s efforts would have been too late, how could $2 million unring the same bell? The argument makes no sense.
Posted by reader on June 27, 2007, 01:39 AM | #
J. Richards,
Totally irrelevant/meaningless statement
The “evidence” that Bill White is a “fake nazi” and self-hating Jew that you apparently found convincing includes:
Bill White On Blacks
Basically, he sees them as just being stupid niggers. He classified Katrina’s victims as being niggers. Video of him at black rally.
Apparently, it suffices that we take your unreferenced comment at face value. I am not a historian and will not be looking up Churchill’s genealogy. JI has made its case; all you have done is mocked it.
Mocking is more than it deserves. I shouldn’t need to respond to it at all. You are welcome to remain ignorant. Everyone else is welcome to do their own research.
Apart from your absurd portrayal of the points above, JI mentioned other issues such as the Jewish Zsa Zsa Gabor gandma, her attending an exclusive school catering to ultra rich individuals of Jewish heritage, etc.
The claims are absurd. Zsa Zsa is not a blood relative of Hilton’s, and not even judicial-inc claims she is. Pay attention. Associating with Jews does not prove one is a Jew. Attending a school founded by a Jew does not prove one is a Jew. Having Norwegian, German, and Irish ancestry does not prove one is a Jew.
I never implied that you endorse the sites, but you obviously endorse the core argument of the PC-Apostate article since you linked to it
No, that’s not obvious. I posted the links mainly to demonstrate I’m not the first person to have found Smith lacking in credibility.
I find it doubtful any of these “patriot"/"anti-zionist" radio hosts are actually backed by “Zionists”. More likely, they’re just fighting over advertising dollars and donations from the gullible.
The only site that I do some webmastering at is this site, not any “feminine beauty” site.
That’s strange, because your writing style and subject matter are eerily similar. I’m particularly surprised you seem to be implying you’ve never even heard of the site. But, whatever. The webmaster of feminine beauty claims to be nonwhite.
MR then has zero credibility from your perspective.
Does not follow. You’re not the only poster here.
Why even bother reading it?
Good question.
When you stuck to discussing scientific papers, you seemed to have a pretty good grasp of your subject matter. But in your future posts, I may just skip to the references.
Posted by a Finn on June 27, 2007, 02:25 AM | #
About small ethnic nationalist communities: Here is sometimes an odd tendency to presume total separation of strategies, like the separation of small communities from the large scale democratic etc. political influence. This is not the case. Small communities participate seamlessly and more efficiently in the large scale politics than individual ethnic nationalists or members of an WN group. If there is a, say, 300 member small community, that lives and works in close proximity, know and trust each other, consider each other to be like kin, then think how efficient it is to coordinate and motivate these people to participating in large scale politics, e.g. resisting immigration. And think how easy it is to coordinate the efforts of all these small communities in large scale politics.
Posted by reader on June 27, 2007, 02:35 AM | #
What is obvious is that the person does not have a straight nose; it is not obvious that the hooked nose is due to photoshopping.
Non-doctored photos of Reade Seligmann:
Does that look like a hooked nose to you?
Better yet, I found the original that judicial-inc photoshopped:
real,
judicial-inc photoshop
How do you justify this, Richards?
Posted by reader on June 27, 2007, 02:43 AM | #
Judicial-inc also includes a doctored version of another photo of Reade Seligmann toward the bottom of the page.
Posted by reader on June 27, 2007, 03:02 AM | #
J. Richards,
How does doctoring photos of Reade Selgimann assist in fighting Zionism? Do actions like that suggest to you that perhaps the proprietor of judicial-inc is less than sincere in his motives?
How does putting out implausible stories that even you claim you “don’t buy” aid the “anti-Zionist” cause? If these stories were actually damaging to Jewish interests, that might be one thing. They’re not. All they do is divert attention from real issues.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on June 27, 2007, 03:58 AM | #
Alex Linder should go through Hitler’s speeches. It’s a mistake to think that during “the years of struggle” Hitler placed the Jews at the centre of his universe. Had he done so, he would’ve remained a marginal candidate and nothing more. You don’t win broad political support by being a “one-issue” pol. He was far from being monomanical and he always tailored his speeches to his audiences needs and concerns. The Jewish Problem doesn’t even come up that often; he’s more concerned with the consequences Versailles Diktat and the economic and social situation than with anything else. Had he been ranting and raving about Jews at every opportunity his appeal would’ve been limited to the neurotics.
Posted by Re: "a reader" and J Richards on June 27, 2007, 04:26 AM | #
Hitler had a complete social program for Germany. The Nuremberg Laws and ridding the nation of traitorous Jews through Palestine emigration were just two simple policies. The real genius of his program lay in less understood areas. (Linder is correct in stating that 1930s German-style National Socialism surpassed “Conservatism” in sophistication, and not vice versa. One gets the impression that GW equates national socialism with spiffily-uniformed Nazis and not more.)
Posted by Friedrich Braun on June 27, 2007, 04:31 AM | #
More on these fine gentlemen:
I HAVE read today your article on the bashing of FM Erhard Milch of the Luftwaffe by a British brigadier that you identify as Brig. Derek Mills-Roberts, DSO, of the Commandos, and I found it abominable that a British general officer would stoop to such outrageously base and cowardly malicious conduct against a captured officer.
However, for all my disgust, I am not really surprised that a high-ranking British army officer (or a British soldier, sailor, or airman of any rank, for that matter) should vent his spleen on an invalided German officer. The British are simply that kind of people.
I have always maintained that the British in war (or peace if you include instances of football hooliganism) are a particularly vindictive, hateful, and nastily chauvinistic lot motivated less by a sense of professional duty or conviction (unlike the Germans) than by a spiteful hatred and deep malice.
The Germans were generally better soldiers, man for man, than their enemies and in the case of the British, the Germans were to be punished and made to pay for having committed the worst of all crimes against the British nation: being the moral, physical, and tactical superior to the British soldier in battle and for having the temerity to inflict physical defeat at both a tactical level and strategic level on the British army.
The absolute malicious and murderous intent against German civilians (noncombatants) behind the area-bombing campaign prosecuted by the aptly nicknamed “Butcher” Harris, the persistent unlawful killing of German prisoners of war in the field (especially by members of such units as the Parachute Regiment and the Commandos, be they from the Army, Navy, or Royal Marines), the atrocities committed against German civilians (noncombatants once again) in the invasion of western Germany by members of Montgomery’s 21st Army Group, including the strafing by aircraft of the 2nd Tactical Air Force of German refugee columns composed almost entirely of civilians, mostly women and children (those damned noncombatants yet again), and the list goes on.
It is clear to this reader of military history that during the Second World War, the British were not an honourable enemy in fighting against the Germans. Indeed, Britannia’s sons were far too often far less honourable than their more detached and professionally-motivated European enemy, the Germans. It is clear to me at least that German soldiers in the field frequently behaved far more decently and honourably towards defeated enemies than the British ever would.
And yet the Germans are slandered and libelled to this day as the villains of the piece, as “war criminals”, and a host of other morally-offensive terms cast in their face when in fact they were frequently the moral superiors to so many of their enemies, east or west, including, it seems, a British brigadier. Victis vae is sadly a fact of life for Germany and the German nation.
I am pleased, Mr Irving, for the contributions you have made in your books in trying to set the record straight and to redress this appalling and massive imbalance of opinion against the German people which is based on nothing more than the propaganda of yesteryear, the distortion of historical events by vested interests, and both the overt and covert falsification of history by those same interests. It is certainly my hope that one day the full truth concerning the Second World War will be known and that it gains the widest possible currency. The truth deserves nothing less.
Posted by danielj on June 27, 2007, 04:47 AM | #
We are soooo off topic it doesn’t matter. So, here we go just for fun:
Associating with Jews does not prove one is a Jew. Attending a school founded by a Jew does not prove one is a Jew.
Tell that to the Askenazi 
Posted by Joe on June 27, 2007, 04:55 AM | #
Scimatar, remember that most white people alive in what was the “North” during the Civil War period are descended from Irish people who hated blacks or Germans, Poles, Italians etc. who came later. The Abolitionist movement was almost entirely WASP. Heavy non-WASP immigration, differential birth rates and westward migration of WASPs means that there are not many of these people left in the Northeastern part of the country. So don’t blame white people in the north today for what someone who lived in the same state as them did 150 years, especially when that person’s few descendents probably live in California or have intermarried with Jews.
Posted by reader on June 27, 2007, 05:12 AM | #
“[WASPs] . . . have intermarried with Jews.”
I’d love to see your source showing WASPs intermarry with Jews at a higher rate than the Irish in the northeast.
Posted by Scimitar on June 27, 2007, 06:21 AM | #
I’m not blaming or attacking anyone on the basis of their geographic location. I was merely offering a historical analysis. The problem is liberalism. That ideological disease is not exclusive to the American North, or unknown in the American South. It has enveloped the entire Western world. We now have to deal with liberal Yankees, liberal Southerners, liberal Canadians, liberal Australians, liberal Germans, liberal Anglos, and so on. I’m willing to work with likeminded whites, irrespective of their geographical location, who support the extirpation of liberalism and Jewish exclusion. There is already enough ethnic bickering on this thread for my tastes. It was not my intention to contribute to it.
Posted by Scimitar on June 27, 2007, 06:41 AM | #
The facts are that regardless of laws passed, the situation on the ground was that blacks were confined to ghettoes, and most whites liked it that way, even if they gave lip service to liberal ideals.
If you are suggesting that “de facto segregation” existed in the North, as it still does today, then I agree. That’s not the same thing as the “de jure segregation” that existed in the Jim Crow South. Were all white Northerners anti-racists in the 1960s and 1970s? Of course not. It was not my intention to insinuate that. Was racial consciousness weaker in the North than the South during the 1960s and 1970s? Very much so. White Northerners were far more likely in opinion polls to believe that: blacks and whites are equally intelligent, black and white children should attend the same schools, miscegenation is acceptable, public accomodations should be non-discriminatory, etc. I will show you the specific graphs of the polling data once I get them uploaded.
Re: the controversy over forced busing in Boston and other Northern cities. Much of the opposition to that was based not so much on racism (i.e., blacks are an inferior race) as it was on the perception that whites were being deprived of their individual liberty. I’m surprised no one has mentioned Wallace’s presidential campaigns. He did very well in the North by opposing forced integration on freedom of association grounds. Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian grounds as well.
The American North, legally speaking, was racially integrated by the early twentieth century. Most Northern states had laws that banned segregation in education and public accomodations. Some states even had laws that outlawed the “vilification” of nonwhites in film and the press. In pointing this out, I was attempting to show that whites infected by ideological liberalism are entirely capable of passing stupid anti-racist laws on their own accord, without Jews there to hold the hangman’s noose for them. Hence, my point about liberalism having to go as well.
Posted by ben tillman on June 27, 2007, 01:11 PM | #
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Wallace’s presidential campaigns.
You’re the expert on Wallace; however, it’s wrong to suggest that “freedom of association” is a cop-out. “Freedom of association” and “property” are damn near synonyms of “life”.
Posted by PF on June 27, 2007, 02:11 PM | #
Addressing Friedrich Braun:
“War is war- there are no rules in such a circumstance.”
Typical Anglo hypocrisy on display. I would have more sympathy for this position if we didn’t have to endure the spectacle of the Nuremberg kangaroo trials at the end of W.W. I
A nation has to rely on its own strength, or the ties of friendship it has to other nations- not a mewling concept of universal justice-- precisely because he who enforces universal justice also interprets it, and interprets it according to his biases-- thus it exists really only in theory, like the physicists’ frictionless billiard table. The UN was a test case for this theory, and look how miserably that has always failed.
I know you would have more sympathy for this position - your sympathy for this position would be boundless, if only it could have been applied for example to German aggressions elsewhere. Might is Right, where Poland is concerned, or perhaps Russia, but when John Bull drops bombs on Dresden it’s “We never did anything on that scale to you.” So with Britain’s allies it’s “Total War” but with the superpower itself you want a Gentleman’s war- conveniently delusional point of view that is.
If truth ever slandered the Germans, Friedrich, you would slap truth and tell her to shut the hell up- I think I understand the spirit of your apologetics very well.
I don’t know if you can grasp my position correctly, since I’m not offering an out-and-out defense of either side or supporting for example the firebombing of Dresden. I’m trying to understand history and I find your viewpoint and fervour more distorting than helpful. It is like LindsayWheelers idealization of the Greeks, and likewise distorting.
My strategic side would think first of the Germans, honestly.
I’m just saying that an honest analysis of history draws your concept of ‘justice’ very much into question. Throw it overboard, and stop pussy-whipping the Anglos with their own bullshit concepts in order to put glory on the Germans. The Germans are a great people, your slobbering hyperbolic praise is more of an insult to them than anything, although the American/Allied caricature of German aggression was extreme. Insofar as you correct that lie, bravo, insofar as you are just writing apologia, lüg mich nicht an äh!
’ll let others judge your utterly vicious stance.
‘Vicious’? Vicious is life, it’s a jungle out there, my concepts are just meant to mirror reality.
Posted by Viridovix on June 27, 2007, 06:10 PM | #
When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.
In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/06/humans_have_spr.php
Liberalism is the $10,000 half of the equation. Libertarianism is the $1,000,000 half of the equation. Jews are only an incidental component inside the overall formula described above.
Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews were mostly marginalized with little overall power relative to their European hosts. The common European might however have still found himself preyed upon, worse than what is experienced today, at the hands of his own extended genetic kin.
It was only with our childish liberalism and its teenager clone, our libertarian “leave me alone” individuality, that Jews experienced a substantial rise in power among European host populations.
Posted by Viridovix on June 27, 2007, 08:43 PM | #
Is a “whites only” egalitarian society possible without social totalitarianism?
Australian Research Council scientists at James Cook University said their discovery has implications for the entire animal kingdom, including humans.
Studying small goby fish at Lizard Island on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Marian Wong and colleagues showed the threat of expulsion from the group acts as a powerful deterrent to keep subordinate fish from challenging those more dominant than they.
In fact, the researchers discovered subordinate fish deliberately diet to remain smaller than their superiors—and so present no threat that might lead to their being cast out and subsequently perishing.
In the case of the gobies, the researchers found only the top male and top female mate, and all the other females have to wait their turn in a queue based on their size. Wong found each fish has a size difference of about 5 percent from the one above and the one below it in the queue.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on June 27, 2007, 11:58 PM | #
PF, like his compatriot on VNN “natsocnet”, displays the charms & beauties of the English character:
Posted by ben tillman on June 28, 2007, 12:49 AM | #
Is a “whites only” egalitarian society possible without social totalitarianism?
I don’t really understand your use of “totalitarianism”. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Studying small goby fish at Lizard Island on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Marian Wong and colleagues showed the threat of expulsion from the group acts as a powerful deterrent to keep subordinate fish from challenging those more dominant than they.
Or, if they had studied human groups, they might observe that the threat of expulsion from the group acts as a powerful deterrent to keep high-status humans from exploiting low-status humans.
Read D.S. Wilson, Christopher Boehm, and Matt Ridley on morality.
Posted by Viridovix on June 28, 2007, 03:22 AM | #
Is a “whites only” egalitarian society possible without social totalitarianism?
State control of public thought and movement is of course completely unacceptable. People want individual freedom of mind and body, but nobody wants anyone else to be free to commit bad behaviour against them unchecked. Liberalism seems very permissive towards bad behaviour. Libertarianism does not guarantee that all members of a society are persons who can be trusted. Neither gives us individual freedom from being overwhelmed by the bad behaviour of organized others.
Here we come to a decision branch. What are we living for? From this answer, we have a design proposal for a civilization. What was the answer and the design proposal that followed that gave us the civilization we now live within?
Or, if they had studied human groups, they might observe that the threat of expulsion from the group acts as a powerful deterrent to keep high-status humans from exploiting low-status humans.
An ideally egalitarian society endeavors to eliminate status or class division. It would however value individual rights to such an extent that the possibility of expulsion from society, for those who behave negatively, is very difficult. We may also find innocent idealists, truly commited to libertarian values, defending a high-status perpetrator.
Discussing the rise of outlaw gangs and mafia oligarchs in the very midst of the libertarian ideal may drive us out of the discussion’s scope. Suffice to say that the high probability of collectives forming against public individuals spells the end of independence. Why?
The state would repeatedly need to step in with a law enforcement body to protect our free individuals from outlaw bullying. That means conscription, taxation or some other collection from the public “for the common good”, eventually ending our libertarian society.
Posted by J Richards on June 28, 2007, 05:54 AM | #
Ben Tillman,
You are right, I should have used “accuser’s stories” instead of “accuser’s story.” Aside from this, I don’t see what the confusion is about the rest.
You hypothesized the ADL preventing the news media from publicizing the case. The alleged 2 million offer did not have to have come from the ADL. A hypothetical scenario would have been Jewish individuals trying to buy the woman’s silence without ADL involvement, but by the time the ADL could have been brought in, after the woman’s refusal to take the money, it was all over the news.
--------------------
Reader,
Bill White - Once again you are coming up with a straw man of JI’s arguments. Real Nazis are going to believe that blacks have a low IQ, but so will many non-Nazis. Nazis and many non-Nazis alike use the N-word. So how can one infer that Bill White is a fake Nazi or self-hating Jew from your caricature of JI’s argument? JI has a lot to say about Bill White.
Churchill: I am pleased to see you finally link to something that the readers can browse to learn about Churchill’s genealogy. Let the reader go over JI’s arguments and your stuff and make his own decision.
Paris Hilton - JI does not argue that Norwegian, German or Irish ancestry makes one Jewish. It points out individuals claiming to have these [non-Jewish] ancestries who curiously end up marrying Jews (e.g., Conrad Hilton marrying Zsa Zsa Gabor) and moving in higher Jewish circles, making one suspect that these individuals had at least part-Jewish ancestry. This is the crux of JI’s argument, and it is reasonable. JI does not claim that it has a slam-dunk case about Paris Hilton’s Jewishness, but who wouldn’t suspect it? Is it mere coincidence or merely a function of riches that the Hiltons’ lives are strongly intertwined with Jewish individuals?
Duke case - Thank you for pointing out Seligmann’s untouched photos. I have seen so many Jews with horrible noses, that unless someone points out an original photo or the photoshopping is bad, it would not be obvious to me that a nose has been edited to make it look worse. If I were the webmaster of JI, I wouldn’t do this, but whoever is responsible certainly has a sense of humor. The important issue is whether such editing hurt JI’s case. If JI were coming with up faked photos like the Zionists have regarding Nazis, then it would quickly lose credibility, but JI is not manipulating the pictures like the Zionists have. Fakes used by Zionists did an effective job driving up anti-German hatred, and sent many individuals to the gallows. In other words, fakes can be effective. If JI is showing criminal Jews with artificially more pronounced hooked noses—and most whites dislike hooked noses – then it is helping make the argument that their criminality is associated with their Jewishness, which may be what JI is attempting to convey with the site. People will generally not know whether most Jews featured at JI have had their noses edited. JI is obviously not catering to the educated elite. It is going after the general public, which isn’t interested in 15,000 word articles with 200 footnotes. It is not doing a bad job exposing Zionism, though I wish it did it in a better manner. I will try to get in touch with its webmaster with suggestions for improvement. I will personally avoid associating the criminality of Zionists with their Jewishness and encourage others to avoid this association, too, but if someone portrays this association and it has the potential to undermine Zionism, then I will not interfere.
No, that’s not obvious. I posted the links mainly to demonstrate I’m not the first person to have found Smith lacking in credibility.
I don’t believe this. You had to know something about Daryl Bradford Smith in order to make sense out of the PC-Apostate article, and should have immediately realized the ludicrousness of it. Given the arguments of Smith, it should be obvious that many would disagree with him. There is no need for anyone to point out one such example.
More likely, they’re just fighting over advertising dollars and donations from the gullible.
Hufschmid does not solicit donations. Neither do Smith, Bollyn or JI. I have never encountered advertisements on Simth’s radio show.
Does not follow [the MR credibility issue]. You’re not the only poster here.
Of course it follows. Your comment pertained to linking to other sites/web pages, not posting at MR. The fact that MR links to JI, IAW and other equivalent sites means that its credibility has gone down the drain from your perspective.
I wish to address a more important issue. You are discrediting JI over minor points. On major issues such as the Holocaust hoax, the Lavon affair, the USS liberty attack, 9/11, Madrid bombing, etc., JI is spot-on regarding the big picture, namely Zionist involvement. Try discrediting the big picture regarding these topics. For the shortcomings in JI’s arguments with respect to these big issues, it wouldn’t be difficult to point out alternative and more scholarly resources.
Posted by danielj on June 28, 2007, 07:15 AM | #
Hufschmid does not solicit donations. Neither do Smith, Bollyn or JI. I have never encountered advertisements on Simth’s radio show.
That should scare you a little bit....
How are they making money? I think anybody with any sort of real internet presence should somehow either account for their funding and/or provide proof of some sort of a career.
For instance, Bollyn seems to be rather wealthy for someone that was pounding out articles for AFP. What else has he been involved in that would afford him a house in the affluent sub division he occupies?
(sorry we are so off topic GW)
Posted by reader on June 28, 2007, 11:35 AM | #
Bill White: So how can one infer that Bill White is a fake Nazi or self-hating Jew from your caricature of JI’s argument?
That was not a “caricature of JI’s argument”. That was a direct quote from judicial-inc, which in its original context is counterposed to the “truth” that Zionist gangsters destroyed New Orleans levees. I’m not the one you need to be asking about judicial-inc’s “logic”.
A recurrent theme of judicial-inc is Jewish dislike for “schvartzes”. Oddly, this Jewish hatred is often illustrated using the alleged statements of non-Jews (Paris Hilton, Bill White, Duke lacrosse players). Who does this serve?
Is the purpose of the site to attack “Zionism” or generate pity for blacks? Illustrating Jewish hypocrisy with regard to blacks (private anti-black sentiment versus public “anti-racist” agitation) might be useful; but this is not what judicial-inc is doing, or even attempting to do.
Hilton: Let’s step back for a minute. If Paris Hilton were a Jew, why would Jews be trying to hide the fact? How would Paris Hilton being revealed as a Jew damage “Zionist” interests? Jews own up to Tori Spelling, for God’s sake.
In reality, Jews will readily claim as Jews anyone for whom there is the slightest evidence of Jewish ancestry. This includes trashy celebrities.
Real evidence for Jewish over-representation among the wealthy and influential is easy to come by. Why would you promote a site that spreads absurd disinformation like this? More importantly, why would you try to defend claims like this and waste my time? Are you trying to save face, or are you really this out of touch with reality?
No evidence exists that Paris Hilton has Jewish ancestry. Period. Being related to people who marry Jews does not constitute evidence for (nor, in 20th-century America, is it even suggestive of) Jewish ancestry. I’m done talking about Paris Hilton.
Duke: If JI is showing criminal Jews with artificially more pronounced hooked noses—and most whites dislike hooked noses – then it is helping make the argument that their criminality is associated with their Jewishness, which may be what JI is attempting to convey with the site.
What judicial-inc actually did: doctor photos of a non-criminal non-Jew. Justify that.
Do you believe there is not enough of evidence of real misdeeds by actual Jews? Do you believe the “anti-Zionist” cause is advanced by smearing a white kid who is a sympathetic figure to anyone who has bothered to obtain the facts on the case (minus radical leftists and blacks)? I would guess that if any of the many thousands of people who have followed the case happen across judicial-inc’s discussion of it, they will be left, at best, with a strong dislike of that particular website, and, at worst, a strong distrust of “anti-Zionists” in general.
As I previously implied, I have no moral qualms about lying to or about Jews—if it advances my interests. The lies of judicial-inc are not damaging to Jews. They are only damaging to judicial-inc and the people who embrace it.
JI is obviously not catering to the educated elite. It is going after the general public, which isn’t interested in 15,000 word articles with 200 footnotes. It is not doing a bad job exposing Zionism, though I wish it did it in a better manner.
I guess you have a very low opinion of the general public. That’s probably warranted. But let’s think this through. Joe Public stumbles upon judicial-inc and is taken in by its sub-supermarket-tabloid-style journalism. JP picks up new “facts” and learns to distrust Jews. JP researches “facts” further, or is disabused of his new “facts” by a more knowledgeable acquaintance, and realizes he’s been lied to. JP now associates “anti-Zionism” with feelings of distrust, or being made to look dumb. What’s to stop JP overshooting in the other direction as he tries to sort out what’s real?
Some fraction of the public may be taken in to such a degree they’ll continue to trust judicial-inc even after they’re shown multiple examples of judicial-inc’s deception. These will disproportionately be the people who were already convinced of Jewish perfidy in the first place. What good does judicial-inc do these people? It shifts their attention from actual issues to fantasies about Jews bribing negro strippers and supressing Paris Hilton’s genealogy. It fills their heads with misinformation, which can only degrade their internal models of the world, lowering their ability to think and act effectively. You are exhibit #1.
I don’t believe this.
I don’t care. For the record, what I know about Smith is what I’ve absorbed from seeing his name mentioned on discussion boards a handful of times, coupled with 20 mintues of research a few days ago.
The fact that MR links to JI, IAW and other equivalent sites means that its credibility has gone down the drain from your perspective.
No. It suggests one of the MR webmasters is not very discerning. By itself, a link in the sidebar doesn’t mean much. Your attempting to defend indefensible claims is what puts your credibility in the shitter. Since you don’t speak for other MR authors, your statements don’t reflect on their credibility.
I wish to address a more important issue.
First, let’s address an even more important issue: what is it you are really trying to accomplish? Is “exposing Zionism” your overriding goal? Because it damn sure isn’t mine.
What I want is to preserve (genetic) northwestern Europeans, and Europeans in general. Everything else is secondary to these goals.
Support for Israel among diaspora Jews is usually a symptom of an ethnocentrism which also manifests in attempts to undermine European interests. So my interests are in conflict with those of “Zionists”. I will expend energy on “exposing Zionists” where it serves my interests. I will not lose sight of the bigger picture.
On major issues such as the Holocaust hoax, the Lavon affair, the USS liberty attack, 9/11, Madrid bombing, etc., JI is spot-on regarding the big picture, namely Zionist involvement. Try discrediting the big picture regarding these topics.
Why should one trust anything on a site that invents facts and doctors photos? I have little doubt I could point out errors in judicial-inc’s treatment of all these topics; but since you laugh off the Reade Seligmann photoshops, I doubt anything will shake your faith. Anyway, since you acknowledge judicial-inc has “shortcomings”, why not go straight to the “alternative and more scholarly resources”?
By the way, what is your ethnic background?
Posted by Maguire on June 28, 2007, 01:26 PM | #
To “Finn” and others,
“About small ethnic nationalist communities: Here is sometimes an odd tendency to presume total separation of strategies, like the separation of small communities from the large scale democratic etc. political influence. This is not the case.”
I agree fully. Small real communities will focus the real tasks like a laser beam. The anti-thesis to living communities is here:
http://vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19
“Working” is in the bottom five topics for activity. And much of that desert is populated by the latest twist on speculating in rare metals like silver and gold, apparently to exchange for Jewish paper money at some point. “Tech Solutions”, “Aryan Community”, “Raising White Children” and “Kirksville; Think Global Act Local” are equally unpopulated.
Other individual threads at VNNF have more word content than all of those categories put together. These include threads devoted to accused pederast Kevin Alfred Strom and known federal informer Frazier Glen Miller.
There is no ‘community’ there. It’s just an anarchic collection of random electrons illuminating phosphor dots. There’s no ‘community’ here either, by the way.
Alex Linder’s subsequent need to post a front page appeal for legal assistance AFTER deciding to get himself arrested at Knoxville should surprise no one. Who with enough focus to get a law degree and license would be tempted to join that carnivale? And what are the prospects for recruiting enough attorneys to ensure coverage of every jurisdiction? Gresham’s Law applies to human organizations as well as financial exchange.
Instead of doing that spade work Alex tried the ju-jitsu method once again. That is, after trying to force Enemy Media to do his work at Knoxville, Alex tried to attract Enemy Legal Infrastructure (the ACLU) by appealing to a moral sense of ‘fairness’ they don’t have. That is a weak point of ours They exploited. It’s not a weakness of theirs we can exploit. This is the inner meaning of the Jewish wisecrack that ‘consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds.”
Maguire
Posted by Scimitar on June 28, 2007, 02:14 PM | #
Have you seen Linder’s latest stunt?
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=51227
http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/06/28/letter-to-mother-of-jessie-davis/
Posted by danielj on June 28, 2007, 04:07 PM | #
Jesus!
That is the most offensive, insensitive and idiotic letter I have ever read. I had to stop after two paragraphs.
What the hell is wrong with him? That is no way to convert anyone to anything.
I have posted at MR while slightly intoxicated but I have never posted anything so hateful.
While we are on the subject, marching around with other people holding signs and screaming doesn’t make a “community” either - nor is it meaningful action.
Posted by Matra on June 28, 2007, 04:57 PM | #
I hope that letter from Linder doesn’t make it beyond WN circles. If it does it will reinforce in the minds of the general (white) public the media image of anyone concerned about the plight of whites.
Calvin’s first post on page one of this thread comes to mind.
Posted by Guessedworker on June 28, 2007, 07:52 PM | #
There seems to be a certain mindset that think it must respond to the perceived contemptible with contemptibleness, as if there was some corrective to be achieved thereby. I am completely baffled by it. Perhaps, if Alex returns to this thread, he would explain.
Posted by Maguire on June 28, 2007, 08:41 PM | #
GW,
“think it must respond to the perceived contemptible with contemptibleness”
To quote Fred On Everything Nietzsche…
“When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
And that is what the non-Movement does best. It stares into the Judeo abyss until the Abyss stares back through them at all of us.
Maguire.
Posted by Friedrich Braun on June 28, 2007, 11:06 PM | #
A very good letter. I agree with every word of it. I remember AntiYuppie writing something similar (in similar circumstances) on the now defunct O.D. forum. I prefer to see a White woman killed than seeing her race-mixing with subsubhuman man-ape hybrids and producing mongrels.
Posted by +++ on June 29, 2007, 01:25 AM | #
Linder didn’t write it.
Posted by +++ on June 29, 2007, 01:28 AM | #
At the moment, it’s Scimitar’s blog, not Linder’s forum which is circulating the letter to the widest audience for good or ill.
Posted by TG on June 29, 2007, 12:19 PM | #
This so called “good Christian girl” from a “good Christian family” had not one, but two children out of wedlock...with a married negro! What a pathetic loser. I have no pity for the stupid. The permissiveness for unnatural acts of miscegenation shown by the mother speaks volumes about why her slutty daughter was murdered at the hands of a sub-human negro.
From the book of Romans:
1:25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacio et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori qui est benedictus in saecula amen
1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam
Posted by J Richards on July 02, 2007, 01:08 PM | #
Daniel J,
That should scare you a little bit [not soliciting donations].... How are they making money?
JI, IAW, erichufschmid.net and bollyn.com at most attract a few thousand unique users a day and all except bollyn.com publish static pages. It would take less than $15 per month to run sites like these, which even poor people can afford. Bollyn is married to a former professional model, and her earnings could easily account for his house if Bollyn hasn’t been making much money on his own.
---------------
Reader,
You indeed came up with a caricature of JI’s argument regarding Bill White. To summarize JI’s arguments about Bill White, it mentions 1) the attention he has received from the ADL, SPLC, NY Post, Zionist-controlled newspapers, etc. (Zionists will not be bringing attention upon someone unless they had something to gain from it), 2) his connection to Zionist set-ups such as the Toledo riots, 3) his growing up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, 4) his attending predominantly Jewish schools, 4) his becoming a slum landlord, 5) his involvement with a woman who turned in the mailing lists of numerous “white supremacist” organizations to the SPLC, 6) his misleading statements on 9/11 and 7) his low opinion of blacks, which was his only take on Katrina rather than a consideration of the mysterious breaking of the levees. JI also puts this in the broader context of fake Nazis such as Fritz Kuhn, Frank Collin, George Rockwell, etc. It is obvious that JI has made a case that Bill White appears to be a fake Nazi, but you ignored the mass of JI’s comments and picked the statement about blacks to come up with a ridiculous caricature.
If Paris Hilton were a Jew, why would Jews be trying to hide the fact?
Who is saying they are trying to hide it? Do you expect Jews to publicize the Jewishness of all Jews in the limelight, especially that of an inadvertent porn star like Paris Hilton? If indeed “Jews will readily claim as Jews anyone for whom there is the slightest evidence of Jewish ancestry,” then there should be plenty of examples of Jews making sure that people understand that Sumner Redstone is Jew Murray Rothstein, right? And I suppose that the Jews are publicizing very well that the Rothschilds are Jewish, too.
Real evidence for Jewish over-representation among the wealthy and influential is easy to come by. Why would you promote a site that spreads absurd disinformation like this?
Am I trying to make a case for Jewish overrepresentation among the rich and powerful by citing JI or is even JI trying to make this case? Most people already know this. What people are mostly ignorant of is the nature and extent of Zionist criminality. JI is a useful source documenting the latter, and my point is that Linder should take a cue from JI and come up with something along its lines, only better, if he wants to deal with Zionism. JI seems to be making the argument “Jews = bad” by making sure that all misbehaving/criminal well-known Jews or people suspected to be Jewish/part-Jewish are exposed.
More importantly, why would you try to defend claims like this and waste my time? Are you trying to save face, or are you really this out of touch with reality?
LOL! Who is wasting whose time? You have completely ignored the fact that Linder is doing a poor job exposing Zionism and should heed my suggestion in the form of coming up with sites along the lines of JI and IAW, but instead have nitpicked minor issues at the JI site, ignoring the broad picture presented there and repeatedly come up with straw men regarding JI’s arguments.
A recurrent theme of judicial-inc is Jewish dislike for “schvartzes”. Oddly, this Jewish hatred is often illustrated using the alleged statements of non-Jews (Paris Hilton, Bill White, Duke lacrosse players). Who does this serve?
JI offers a lot of content. It is far from true that JI is often using statements by non-Jews alleged to be Jews/part-Jewish. You can choose to believe that Paris Hilton and Bill White are completely non-Jewish, but JI isn’t just making an empty allegation that these individuals are part Jewish.
Is the purpose of the site to attack “Zionism” or generate pity for blacks?
Most of JI does not address blacks.
What judicial-inc actually did: doctor photos of a non-criminal non-Jew. Justify that.
The doctoring is limited to the nose, is along the lines of a joke, and does not amount to doctoring evidence related to the case like the Zionists did to WW2 photos. I do not know whether Seligmann is non-Jewish, but if he is then there is no guarantee that he is a non-criminal.
Do you believe there is not enough of evidence of real misdeeds by actual Jews?
There is evidence aplenty of Jewish misdeeds, but not in a single place. Something like JI minus its shortcomings is a step in the right direction.
I would guess that if any of the many thousands of people who have followed the case happen across judicial-inc’s discussion of it, they will be left, at best, with a strong dislike of that particular website, and, at worst, a strong distrust of “anti-Zionists” in general.
Joe Public stumbles upon judicial-inc and is taken in by its sub-supermarket-tabloid-style journalism. JP picks up new “facts” and learns to distrust Jews. JP researches “facts” further, or is disabused of his new “facts” by a more knowledgeable acquaintance, and realizes he’s been lied to. JP now associates “anti-Zionism” with feelings of distrust, or being made to look dumb. What’s to stop JP overshooting in the other direction as he tries to sort out what’s real?
The fools that would end up strongly disliking an extensive website because of errors in an insignificant part of it and distrusting anti-Zionist sites in general because of this deserve to be screwed by Zionists.
As I previously implied, I have no moral qualms about lying to or about Jews—if it advances my interests.
Spoken just like a Zionist. I have moral qualms about lies other than white lies.
The lies of judicial-inc are not damaging to Jews. They are only damaging to judicial-inc and the people who embrace it.
And these “lies” involve joking about hooked noses or trivial and relatively inconsequential maters such as questionable genealogies of some public figures that are of little concern to the Jewish question.
It shifts their attention from actual issues to fantasies about Jews bribing negro strippers and supressing Paris Hilton’s genealogy. It fills their heads with misinformation, which can only degrade their internal models of the world, lowering their ability to think and act effectively. You are exhibit #1.
Go through everything I have posted at MR and see where exactly I have been talking about Jews bribing black strippers and Paris Hilton’s genealogy. Nowhere except recently in response to you picking on trivial stuff at JI. Your statement is nothing but nonsense.
For the record, what I know about Smith is what I’ve absorbed from seeing his name mentioned on discussion boards a handful of times, coupled with 20 mintues of research a few days ago.
I don’t believe this either.
By itself, a link in the sidebar doesn’t mean much.
Really? To quote you, “The apparent connection with judicial-inc immediately calls their credibility into question, as well.” This statement did not follow from any analysis of the contents of IAW by you.
Your attempting to defend indefensible claims is what puts your credibility in the shitter.
And all these “indefensible” claims happen to be trivial issues presented as straw men by you, not one of which I ever bothered addressing, let alone “defending,” before you decided to mess up this thread. I have already noted that I not betting my money on JI’s portrayal of the Duke case or the Katrina levee destruction.
Since you don’t speak for other MR authors, your statements don’t reflect on their credibility.
In reference to your quote, the credibility of MR authors based on what they have posted is not the issue. The issue is, once again, linking to questionable websites.
First, let’s address an even more important issue: what is it you are really trying to accomplish? Is “exposing Zionism” your overriding goal? Because it damn sure isn’t mine.
My goals are the same as that of other MR authors. I don’t obsess over Zionism. Not one of my entries at MR blog have addressed Zionism. It is obvious that “exposing Zionism” isn’t any particular concern of yours.
What I want is to preserve (genetic) northwestern Europeans, and Europeans in general. Everything else is secondary to these goals.
If you are not a Zionist agent, then you should realize that the road to prosperity for NW and other Europeans passes through Tel Aviv, and in true Israeli fashion, the Zionists are not preventing the Europeans from marching through by setting up barricades; the Zionists are using underground road bombs, which they detonate by remote control and blame on car bombs set up by Arabs.
Why should one trust anything on a site that invents facts and doctors photos?
The “invented” facts are trivial issues, and it is debatable to what extent a number of these trivial issues are outright “inventions.” The doctoring of photos appears limited to manipulating the nose, which is a joke, not Zionist-style WW2 photo doctoring. All reasonable individuals are expected to cross check the claims of JI with other sources, which goes for any sensationalistic claim regardless of where it is encountered.
I have little doubt I could point out errors in judicial-inc’s treatment of all these topics [big issues like Holocaust, 9/11, Madrid bombing]…
Then do so. The challenge for you is to destroy the big picture with respect to the big issues, not pick on minutiae. See if you can do it.
Anyway, since you acknowledge judicial-inc has “shortcomings”, why not go straight to the “alternative and more scholarly resources”?
I will as needed. IAW is a more scholarly resource for many issues covered by JI, and I have linked to it, too. If there were a more scholarly version of JI, I would quickly link to it. Eventually there will be no need to link to JI since there will be better alternatives, hopefully at MR wiki, too. But for the time being, JI is not a bad source. Even IAW is surely aware of JI’s shortcomings, but still links to it. For instance, IAW has made the obvious argument that Rense.com is part of the Zionist network and also that the “rats can be followed to their nest,” namely that it is easy to figure out who is part of the Zionist network by looking at the links section and going over the contents of the sites linked to. JI links to Rense.com, but JI’s contents make it unlikely that it is part of the Zionist network, and till it turns out otherwise or there is a better source, JI should be linked to.
By the way, what is your ethnic background?
Mixed Euro...major element English
Posted by reader on July 03, 2007, 01:18 AM | #
If indeed “Jews will readily claim as Jews anyone for whom there is the slightest evidence of Jewish ancestry,” then there should be plenty of examples of Jews making sure that people understand that Sumner Redstone is Jew Murray Rothstein, right? And I suppose that the Jews are publicizing very well that the Rothschilds are Jewish, too.
Searching the Forward, we find a story about Sumner Redstone being honored by the UJA; 26 hits for Rothschild, including “Jewish community leader, Lord Rothschild”; and 7 hits for Paris Hilton, none of which, strangely, mentions her bat mitzvah.
JI is a useful source documenting the latter, and my point is that Linder should take a cue from JI and come up with something along its lines, only better, if he wants to deal with Zionism.
I’d say that, for sane people, VNN is a hell of a lot more convincing than judicial-inc. VNN has it’s share of problems; but its organizing principle, white nationalism, is much sounder than the “anti-Zionist” conspiracist organizing principle of IAW/JIB. Anyway, it’s one thing to promote the JIB format or style. It’s another to defend its content. This discussion has been enlightening, in that you have revealed yourself to be batshit insane and/or completely lacking in judgment.
JI seems to be making the argument “Jews = bad” by making sure that all misbehaving/criminal well-known Jews or people suspected to be Jewish/part-Jewish are exposed.
You’re taking JIB more seriously than its author does:
[e-mail to third party]
... Judicial is a tabloid.
My approach targets people with a five minute time span. No real researcher will hit my site. But most people aren’t interested in the holocaust, so I give them an entertainer primer [!].
[. . .]
I shouldn’t have to defend myself ----- All you guys are anti-semites and holocaust deniers.
Does that sound like a sincere person? Is this someone whose site you should be promoting as “not a bad source”?
LOL! Who is wasting whose time? You have completely ignored the fact that Linder is doing a poor job exposing Zionism and should heed my suggestion in the form of coming up with sites along the lines of JI and IAW, but instead have nitpicked minor issues at the JI site, ignoring the broad picture presented there and repeatedly come up with straw men regarding JI’s arguments.
Have you asked your cult leader how he feels about Linder?
Anyway, “Zionists” are not the problem. Jews are the problem. The issues with JIB are not minor. The errors I’ve pointed out are representative of the type of errors that appear throughout the site. The “anti-racist” ideology I have identified is carried through the entire site.
I believe any clear-thinking will have already been convinced of the worthlessness of judicial-inc with the examples in this thread, if not merely by glancing at the site itself.
Carlos Porter provides many additional examples of problems with JIB in the following links:
Dutroux
http://www.cwporter.com/judicialinc.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/judicialchateauxhoax.htm
skunk letter
http://www.cwporter.com/skunkiestrikesback.htm
Leo Frank
http://www.cwporter.com/letter29a.htm
Lindbergh kidnapping
http://www.cwporter.com/loonylindyfile.htm
Updates
http://www.cwporter.com/skunkieupdate.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/skunkienote.htm
Here, someone busts Skunk lying about Sam Walton:
“Sam Walton was born in Kingfisher, Oklahoma, graduating from the University of Missouri with an economics degree in 1940. His college fraternity - Alpha Epsilon Pi - gave him the nick-name “Hustler.” “
The above statement is wrong. I have a 1937 and 1938 University of Missouri yearbook (bought for $1.00 at a garage sale)..I only purchased the year books because I graduated from the same college. Sam is pictured in the yearbook for both years as a member of Beta Theta Pi...and he was also in one of those honor societies that picks like the top 5 people in each class. Alpha Epsilon Pi is a Jewish fraternity..and Sam was not an AEP. Beta Theta Pi is not a Jewish fraternity..it is for Wasps.... Beta Theta Pi lets everyone on campus know that Sam Walton was a member...so this statement in the article is wrong.
Ann Walton is not sam walton’s daughter (the one married to Stanley Kroenke). Ann walton is the daughter of Sam’s brother..I think his name was Bud...Bud worked at Wal Mart with sam..but he was not the main player.
Sam Walton is clearly not Jewish. And, incidentally, I’ve seen no evidence Kroenke is Jewish.
I could go on, but what’s the point? I’ve already given you several blatant examples of JIB lies, which you dismiss as “straw men”.
JI isn’t just making an empty allegation that [Paris Hilton and Bill White] are part Jewish.
“Empty allegations” describes these pages perfectly.
The doctoring is limited to the nose, is along the lines of a joke, and does not amount to doctoring evidence related to the case like the Zionists did to WW2 photos.
When the “case” is that Seligmann is a Jew, doctoring his nose is pretty damned related to the case.
I do not know whether Seligmann is non-Jewish, but if he is then there is no guarantee that he is a non-criminal.
There is no “guarantee” anyone is “non-criminal”. Normal people don’t go around making up stories and alleging crimes without evidence, and thinking people don’t go around believing or “keeping an open mind” about such stories.
Same with Jewish ancestry. Anyone could be part-Jew. But honorable people don’t accuse others of being Jews without good reason.
There is no more reason to think Seligmann has Jewish ancestry than there is to think any other given person with a name that can be either German or Jewish and no other signs of Jewish ancestry is a part-Jew. There is less reason to think Seligmann is criminal than there is to think any given college student is criminal, since Seligmann has come under close scrutiny and no criminal activity has been uncovered.
The fools that would end up strongly disliking an extensive website because of errors in an insignificant part of it and distrusting anti-Zionist sites in general because of this deserve to be screwed by Zionists.
JIB is riddled with errors throughout. You are blind if you don’t see this. I doubt you are stupid, since I don’t recall noticing major deficiencies in your reasoning ability prior to the past couple weeks. So, you must be some combination of mentally ill and totally ignorant of large swathes of relevant knowledge.
Spoken just like a Zionist. I have moral qualms about lies other than white lies.
Good for you. You want a medal? Are you going for your Universalist Morality merit badge?
Do you have moral qualms when you say you’re European, or when you say you’re part Asian? Or is lying about your race a “white lie”?
Go through everything I have posted at MR and see where exactly I have been talking about Jews bribing black strippers and Paris Hilton’s genealogy. Nowhere except recently in response to you picking on trivial stuff at JI. Your statement is nothing but nonsense.
You have proven in this thread that you can’t seperate fact from fantasy. That’s not a trivial matter.
Posted by reader on July 03, 2007, 01:21 AM | #
I don’t believe this either.
And I still don’t give a fuck. But since I consider it rather impolite of you to question my integrity a second time and again imply I am a “Zionist agent” sent here to discredit your cult leader, I’ll take this opportunity to point everyone to http://www.femininebeauty.info. The reader is free decide if the overlap in debating style, subject matter, and illustrations by way of (the same) porn sites between “J Richards” and “Erik Holland” is mere coincidence. “Erik Holland” claims:
For your information, I am part Caucasian, part Asian and a polytheist. Speaking of white male advantage, spend some time on the streets and see the numerous homeless white males out there. Why are these individuals not enjoying their white male privilege? Anyway, I am barely interested in issues involving ethnicity and am surely not whining about African-Americans or gays.
Another interesting comment from “Holland”:
It never occurred to me to name this site “white feminine beauty,” but since you mention it, this name reeks of white supremacism, and I would much rather not attract comments from the deviates who subscribe to this ideology.
Really? To quote you, “The apparent connection with judicial-inc immediately calls their credibility into question, as well.” This statement did not follow from any analysis of the contents of IAW by you.
When I visited IAW for the first time, I very quickly sensed that it was connected to judicial-inc. I guess I’m just perceptive like that. It was probably a combination of the reciprocal links, similarities in design, and similar agendas that tipped me off. Anyway, I’m not the first to have noticed the connection: others have pointed out that judicial-inc.biz and iamthewitness.com are both up for renewal February 8, 2008. What a shocking, unexpected coincidence, eh?
Anyway, knowing what I know now, I’d say IAW does a perfectly good job of discrediting itself even if we ignore the connection to judicial-inc.
Do you believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked? Do you believe we are “Zionists” if we don’t?
And all these “indefensible” claims happen to be trivial issues presented as straw men by you, not one of which I ever bothered addressing, let alone “defending,” before you decided to mess up this thread. I have already noted that I not betting my money on JI’s portrayal of the Duke case or the Katrina levee destruction.
Sorry, not good enough. You’ve shown you lack judgment. Reality and Skunk’s absurd fabrications are not on equal footing.
I would allow you the eccentricity of believing in goofy conspiracy theories yourself if you weren’t also trying to promote these sites in a venue like MR and insisting those who disagree with them are “Zionist agents”. IAW and JIB do nothing to promote European interests, and if anything actively work against them. Daryl Bradford Smiths rants against “white supremacist nitwits”; claims “racists” and “Nazis” are Zionists; says he’s against “Zionists”, not against Jews; and says we should judge people by the “content of their character”.
This worldview, which combines anti-racism and paranoid “anti-Zionism”, is clearly not concerned with advancing European interests.
This is as good a place as any to note that DBS’s wife is allegedly non-white. DBS “answers” this charge in the mp3 linked above by denying that his wife is “black” and claiming his wife’s skin is “white as driven snow”; interestingly, he doesn’t actually claim she is (racially) white. At the same time, he says he would have no problem marrying a non-white, and claims first to be 1/16 indian, then to have a grandmother who is 1/2 indian (which would make him 1/8 nonwhite).
Peter Schaenk discusses Daryl Bradford Smith.
Alleged results of a background investigation on Smith:
What follows is an excerpt (verbatim) from a Karl Schwarz e-mail to Lisa Guliani which was compiled after he did a background search on Daryl Bradford Smith:
He lives in Lyon, married to a non-white dance instructor. That is how they met, what caused the blow up with him, John Stadtmiller, even Ted down at GCN
Was born Daryl Bradford Christian Smith, father died in Marine air crash. Adopted by Setters, birth certificate says Smith, his SS card says Setters.
Uses both names to block trails on him
Has a sizeable arrest record in NY before he met her, married and went to France
Both civil and criminal in nature
Thought that was odd when he and Hufschmid pretend to police the 9-11 truth movement, you know = has a record and pretends to be lily white and not
Tried to knife his own brother to death, chased him out of his own home and down the street when told to quit being a slob or leave.
Brother terms him as brilliant but likes to make money easy way instead of work, a con artist so to speak (his brother’s words)
My goals are the same as that of other MR authors.
Name them (your goals). I think GW has made quite clear majorityrights is not monolithic in viewpoint.
I don’t obsess over Zionism. Not one of my entries at MR blog have addressed Zionism.
The last sentence is true. Which makes your recent behavior all the more striking.
If you are not a Zionist agent, then you should realize that the road to prosperity for NW and other Europeans passes through Tel Aviv, and in true Israeli fashion, the Zionists are not preventing the Europeans from marching through by setting up barricades; the Zionists are using underground road bombs, which they detonate by remote control and blame on car bombs set up by Arabs.
Pernicious Jewish influence is unquestionably part of the problem. “Zionist” conspiracies, real or imagined, are mostly irrelevant. WTC deaths add up to around 3000. Regardless of who is responsible for the attack, it did not put Europeans on the road to extinction. And, regardless of who is responsible, neither Jews nor Muslims belong in Western nations.
You are not going to convince most people the Moon landings were a hoax. You are not going to convince most people Jews did WTC. It wouldn’t matter if these claims were true. Investigating claims like these is orthogonal to European racial preservation.
All reasonable individuals are expected to cross check the claims of JI with other sources,
Contrast this statement with “I am not a historian and will not be looking up Churchill’s genealogy. JI has made its case”. Clearly, you have no interest in cross checking anything, or you never would have been so impressed with judicial-inc.
IAW is a more scholarly resource for many issues covered by JI
Ha ha.
But for the time being, JI is not a bad source.
Are you serious?
For instance, IAW has made the obvious argument that Rense.com is part of the Zionist network
Why don’t you list for us some of the other people IAW has accused of being “Zionists” or Zionist tools?
It’s basically everyone, isn’t it? Smith, Hufschmid, and Bollyn—and true believer “Richards"/"Holland"—against an entire world of Zionists and Zionist lapdogs.
Posted by J Richards on July 04, 2007, 02:41 PM | #
Reader,
You cited a page mentioning Sumner Redstone being honored by the UJA, but it does not mention that Sumner Redstone is a Jew or that his original name is Murray Rothstein. Is the UJA only going to honor Jews?
Most of the 26 pages at forward.com where the Rothschilds are mentioned do not say that they are Jewish. Very few do so directly. This is an example of Jews doing a good job of publicizing the Jewishness of some important figures in the public?
Not all part-Jewish individuals go through a bar mitzvah, and if Paris Hilton, assuming she is part Jewish, hasn’t gone through this process, then it will obviously not be mentioned.
I’d say that, for sane people, VNN is a hell of a lot more convincing than judicial-inc. VNN has it’s share of problems; but its organizing principle, white nationalism, is much sounder than the “anti-Zionist” conspiracist organizing principle of IAW/JIB.
Only a Zionist would write the above. VNN promotes extreme racism and foulness. Just look at Linder’s latest letter to the mother of the miscegenating murdered woman, linked above. It is sick. Whom will it convince? If VNN’s content represents white nationalism, then what do you think Joe Public’s view of WNism would be?
Anyway, it’s one thing to promote the JIB format or style. It’s another to defend its content. This discussion has been enlightening, in that you have revealed yourself to be batshit insane and/or completely lacking in judgment.
The big picture at JI is sound, and I am defending the big picture, namely the vast scope of Zionist malfeasance. I am not defending every detail there, which I have already explained in detail. I have also mentioned numerous shortcomings of JI, which I hope the webmaster improves on. If you believe that I am batshit insane or completely lacking in judgment, then it is time for you to stop debating me. I would never debate a batshit insane person.
You’re taking JIB more seriously than its author does:
You have cited an email message, supposedly by JI’s webmaster, at a website by Carlos Porter. There is no evidence that JI’s webmaster wrote it. No email of JI’s webmaster is provided for me to cross-check whether he wrote it. Even if JI’s webmaster wrote it, it confirms what I have said, that the website does not appear to be oriented toward scholars; it is targeting the general public that is not interested in lengthy, well-footnoted articles. And here is the key that you have not mentioned in your comment.
I am afraid that most people aren’t aware of the Jew’s mindset.
All you have to do is look at the attack on the USS Liberty, the Lavon affair, Tripoli transmitters, King David hotel bombing, and then ask yourself just how far out are Judicial’s theories.
This confirms, if it is indeed the writing of JI’s webmaster, that he is trying to make the case “Jews = bad” rather than “Zionists = bad.” The last statement is also about the big picture, which is where JI is sound.
Anyway, “Zionists” are not the problem. Jews are the problem.
I believe that the only problematic Jews are the Zionists, not others. I don’t have anything against Jews in general.
The issues with JIB are not minor. The errors I’ve pointed out are representative of the type of errors that appear throughout the site.
Consider it a challenge to disprove JI regarding the big picture concerning the Holocaust, 9/11, the attack on USS Liberty and other IMPORTANT issues. Unless you can do so, your statement is just empty. The links to Carlos Porter’s site are pages that address trivial issues, too. Unless you or Porter can show that JI is wrong about IMPORTANT issues in reference to Zionist criminality, I will consider JI to be good enough for the general public not interested in scholarly arguments, which describes most people.
The “anti-racist” ideology I have identified is carried through the entire site.
If JI is promoting an anti-racist ideology, then I am glad. Nothing like Linder-style racist commentary to scare the white sheeple away. In the event you haven’t realized it, MR does not promote racism. The preservation of European ethnic genetic interests and Western culture does not require us to prove that non-whites are “inferior” or argue that they should be discriminated against. There are some areas where whites enjoy an advantage, and documenting this advantage to make the case that there is some value to Euro preservation apart from doing so because it is our own is not racism, though it will be seen as “racist” by some, and this is the only type of “racism” you will encounter from MR bloggers.
I’ve already given you several blatant examples of JIB lies, which you dismiss as “straw men”.
The straw men are not JI’s arguments. The straw men are your portrayals of JI’s arguments. For instance, compare your portrayal of JI’s argument about Bill White to my summary of JI’s argument.
When the “case” is that Seligmann is a Jew, doctoring his nose is pretty damned related to the case.
The case against Seligmann had nothing whatsoever to do with his nose, and doctoring Seligmann’s nose therefore does not amount to doctoring facts related to the case (once again, think of Zionist-style WW2 photo doctoring).
There is no “guarantee” anyone is “non-criminal”.
The statement did not pertain to just about any kind of criminality that Seligmann may have been guilty of, but specifically to the outlandish allegation that was the Duke case.
So, you must be some combination of mentally ill and totally ignorant of large swathes of relevant knowledge.
Another reason for you to stop debating me. I would not debate an insane or very ignorant person.
Do you have moral qualms when you say you’re European, or when you say you’re part Asian? Or is lying about your race a “white lie”?
Where have I said that I am part Asian?
The reader is free decide if the overlap in debating style, subject matter, and illustrations by way of (the same) porn sites between “J Richards” and “Erik Holland” is mere coincidence.
I see nothing other than very superficial similarity regarding some of the contents. This Holland guy’s arguments are not racial and he cannot even get himself to use the word race or acknowledge it. I am amused you believe that I am him. I am not the only person with access to scientific sources and porn sites or the capability of writing in scientific style. Anyway, thank you for the link; I found a new source of pictures of beautiful white women...will come in handy.
Anyway, knowing what I know now, I’d say IAW does a perfectly good job of discrediting itself even if we ignore the connection to judicial-inc.
Do you believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked? Do you believe we are “Zionists” if we don’t?
Once again, you pick on a minor issue, not related to Zionist criminality, to discredit IAW. The Apollo moon landings never occurred. NASA has recently