|
|
A potential one-man mental hospital for Anders Behring Breivik!If one considers the logistics of the Norwegian massacre on July 22, 2011, the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing by Jews, there’s no way one man did it, and the totality of the evidence points to Jews. The alleged perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, was later declared insane and unfit for trial, the rationale given for his insanity being completely bogus. Anders Behring Breivik is reportedly kept in isolation. Since he needs to be confined to a mental hospital, now they’re saying that there’s no psychiatric facility in Norway secure enough to prevent him from escaping, and hence they may build a one-man hospital to confine Breivik! At this point on has to wonder whether Anders Behring Breivik is an actual person. I don’t think he is. There’s the bogus facebook page, the digitally edited photographs of this alleged person, the strange low-resolution picture allegedly depicting a man shooting people on Utoya Island taken from above [who took it?], the bogus rationale for insanity, and the latest excuse to avoid people interacting with a real person named Breivik. There’s also all the Jews and Jewish propaganda disseminators who received an emailed manifesto, allegedly from Breivik, shortly before the attacks, which according to the narrative must have been when he briefly stopped somewhere to email his contacts while driving to his destination, loaded with bombs, guns and ammunition. The email recipients haven’t provided the header of the email so that the email address and IP of the sender can be traced. It’s piling up. The job is more kosher than it originally appeared. Posted by R-news on Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 03:29 PM in Media, World Affairs Comments:2
Posted by jamesUK on January 26, 2012, 05:55 PM | # It don’t see how Jews benefit from the Norway attack. Please explain the logic of the Mossad being behind it or how it advances Jewish interests? More interesting is Breveiks trips to Belarus and throughout Europe Perhaps it was Gods wrath. God’s wrath may have sparked attacks: writer “Christian Democrat leader Knut Arild Hareide has described as “unacceptable” a speech made by a writer at a party event last week suggesting the July 22nd terror attacks may have been God’s punishment for Norway’s poor diplomatic relations with Israel. Haakonsen, a Christian conservative who espouses much-improved relations with Israel, gave his talk on the topic of “Anti-Semitic attitudes in Norway and among Christians”. Speaking in Sarpsborg’s town hall, Haakonsen said: “The Utøya massacre can be viewed in the light of the increasingly inflamed relationship between Israel and Norway and the diplomatic controversies of the recent period.” Haakonsen also noted that the 1980 Alexander Kielland platform disaster occurred shortly after Norway had refused to sell oil to Israel. “It is thought-provoking that the two greatest accidents in Norway since the war can be tied to Norway’s relationship to Israel. Instinctively, we may ask: Could these accidents have been avoided if we’d had a more positive relationship with Israel?” http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/gods-wrath-behind-july-attacks-writer 3
Posted by Søren Renner on January 26, 2012, 08:09 PM | # So far noone has mentioned the jlizard in the living room: the overwhelming possibility that the attacks were carried out not by Breivik but by another man with the same name—or many of such. Anyone familiar with Dr. Hellstrom’s research will agree that a swarm of Breivik-clones could have easily killed those people—without intending evil. Perhaps they were trying, in a confused way, to establish a new hive. 4
Posted by Bill Yancey on January 26, 2012, 08:18 PM | #
You can say that again. I take back my criticisms of the intellectuals. Bring them back! 5
Posted by jamesUK on January 26, 2012, 10:08 PM | # So far noone has mentioned the jlizard in the living room: the overwhelming possibility that the attacks were carried out not by Breivik but by another man with the same name—or many of such. Why? For what reason? Anyone familiar with Dr. Hellstrom’s research will agree that a swarm of Breivik-clones could have easily killed those people—without intending evil. I take it by clones you are speaking figuratively? Do you have a link to his research? I am willing to believe Breveik had accomplices but why the grand conspiracy regarding Breveik? If a foreign or domestic intelligence service was used in the attack what was the motivation and purpose? 6
Posted by Lurker on January 26, 2012, 10:26 PM | # The Hellstrom reference, clones research etc is meant ironically. Dr Hellstrom is a fictional character created by Frank Herbert.
7
Posted by Ima L. Teapot on January 26, 2012, 11:21 PM | # This Breivik hoax is exactly the kind of thing that David Ickes has been warning about. 8
Posted by Gregor on January 27, 2012, 01:07 AM | # Shades of Rudolph Hess’ incarceration, redux. Breveik may meet the same fate Hess did. Can’t have those pesky goyim seeing things too clearly, can we. 9
Posted by Robert Reis on January 27, 2012, 07:20 AM | # Worth pndering. http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2012/01/israel-did-9-11-judaica-and-9-11-part_26.html 10
Posted by Jovlang on January 27, 2012, 08:48 AM | # jamesUK, AUF was anti-Israel and willing to recognize a Palestinian state. 11
Posted by Bill on January 27, 2012, 11:05 AM | # I remember clearly when the news first broke. The first question was, how were the media going to explain away Brievic’s actions? Right from the start it was a confused response, it was obvious there had been no group huddle on a consensus response of damage limitation. Some were genuinely confused, others rhetorical with nothing of substance, but there were some telling it as it was was, namely, that Breivik was protesting the Islamification of Norway and by extension Europe. I couldn’t believe it, the media was off balance and blurting it out, I was gobsmacked! After a few hours the media began to rally and closed ranks, anything remotely explicit was dropped like a hot potato, they then shifted into their usual mode, Breivik was insane. From that moment on, the Breivic story was history, he/it was flung down the memory hole and capped with six feet of concrete never to be seen or heard of again. 12
Posted by Alaric on January 27, 2012, 11:18 AM | # I’m not sure who this ‘R-news’ poster is, but I must wonder why he is allowed to push out his fecal verbiage onto this website? Why is the owner of MR sabotaging his own website by allowing absolutely atrocious front-page posters? 13
Posted by DP on January 27, 2012, 11:23 AM | #
An interesting idea. You’re suggesting that the stakes of this game are such that some players will employ subterfuge. Of course this radical idea is easily dismissed by such incisive responses as: “They wouldn’t do anything like that”, “They couldn’t do anything like that”, “I saw it on TV”, “You are stupid”, and, the knockout blow, “People who believe that Lizards run the world are stupid”. 14
Posted by Robert Reis on January 27, 2012, 02:57 PM | # http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html 15
Posted by Hunter Wallace on January 27, 2012, 04:19 PM | # I’m not sure what else there is to do here ... but laugh. The Jews did 9/11. SBPDL and Ron Paul are controlled opposition. Counter-Currents and VNN Forum are controlled by the Jews. Utoya was a Jewish operation. I’m a Jew or controlled by the Jews. This is like a scene out of Mel Gibson’s movie Conspiracy Theory. I find it much more likely that (1) J Richards is either a fruitcake or (2) intentionally trying to make the Jewish Question into a tinfoil hat subject to discredit anyone who seriously tries to address that issue. The real mystery here is why GW allows this continue. Is it an English sense of humor? 16
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 27, 2012, 05:33 PM | # @DP How about this: people that think the Jewish community exclusively ‘run the world’ or even are the primary agency at work in running the world are seriously misguided. Monocausal monomania is only fit for those that wish to see “The Crackpots Strike Back” made into a movie. I have to agree that such over the top silliness, as displayed by the above OP, has a seriously chilling effect upon any sober and serious discussion of the wider subject. It’s almost as if such an outlook is only rationally defensible of one wished to completely discredit any discussion and/or to make the wider topic utterly toxic (and off limits). It’s GW’s show (so really his call) but some prudent discrimination might go a long way. 17
Posted by jamesUK on January 27, 2012, 09:26 PM | # @Jovlang “jamesUK, AUF was anti-Israel and willing to recognize a Palestinian state. So what! Norway is probably the most liberal country in the world and supported every Muslim sepratist cause including Bosnian, Kosovo, Chechen, Xinjing and groups in Central Asia. In July of 2010 the New York subway bombing plot was hatched in Norway which included an Uzbek and a Uygher (Xinjing). What benefit would it be to Israel for having a terrorist that is pro-Zionist and anti-Muslim that praises Israel? 18
Posted by zalmoxis on January 28, 2012, 03:20 AM | #
Well, someone had to have been in the pics. I imagine Breivik was a real person - not terribly bright, an adherent of the anti-racialist, philo-Semitic “Vienna School”, and clearly narcissistic - whom Mossad realized they could use as a willing patsy. Jews want to send a message to the Norwegian elite: keep fucking with us, and we’ll kill your goddamn children. They tell Breivik that if he helps take out some anti-Zionists, he’ll go down as a glorious hero, and he consents. Most if not all of the actual shooting is done by Mossad agents (see for instance the reports of multiple shooters and different types of gunfire), but Breivik takes the heat. It’s perhaps not ideal for the Jews to use a rabid neocon as a fall guy, but at the same time they’ve got to make the story somewhat believable, and they’ve got to pin it on someone. Who else but a fanatical Zionist is going to want to have anything to do with such a plot? The disappointing thing about the whole Breivik affair has been how positively he has been viewed by ostensible WNs. Everyone from Kevin MacDonald to Alex Linder and seemingly everyone in-between has praised him. MacDonald’s even got an interview up over at Counter-Currents, praising Breivik while at the same time emphasizing the need to keep sociopaths out of the movement and attract “normal people”, apparently without realizing the irony at all. Ultimately, most “White nationalists” are basically Christian Zionists at heart - when it comes down to it, they will side with Jews and against the White people who are standing up to Jews, like the young Norwegians starting a boycott against Israel on Utoya who were gunned down by Breivik. These “White nationalists” say that these young Norwegians were “the children of the people who are destroying Norway”, which is utterly and obviously false - Norway is being flooded by non-White immigrants because Judeo-American military power deposed the pro-White governments of Europe in WWII and is imposing diversity on them by force, not because of some “White liberal elite”. In fact, using adherents of Jew-created ideologies (such as Christianity, Bolshevism, or the “Vienna school”) to kill the White elite that is opposed to the Jews has been a prominent theme of European history for the last 2,000 years. Breivik and his supporters are our worst enemies, after the Jews themselves. 19
Posted by anon on January 28, 2012, 04:10 AM | #
Two things to say to this. 1. Jewish “White Nationalists” like Auster and Unamused are more fatal to the non-movement than Anders Breivik. 20
Posted by Silver on January 28, 2012, 09:29 AM | # HW,
No need to be so guarded. It’s total kookery, some of the worst ever seen, even in these circles. (Quick, can you think of worse you’ve read off the top of your head?)
Because GW’s in “the same place” in his head. The results/outcome (re white racial interests) are despicable therefore they could only possibly have been caused by despicable, depraved, vile, malicious groups and individuals. People who think that way produce commentary like this. GW’s lucidity masks the rot beneath but the thinking style is the same. You were never so bad, but it’s a bit like you before you came to your senses and realized that no matter how aggrieved and despairing you are over what is occurring and what it portends changes will only come about by confronting the world on its own terms (not on what’s floating about in your mind).
22
Posted by DP on January 28, 2012, 02:05 PM | # Graham_Lister -
. Are they misguided in thinking that Jews overwhelmingly dominate mass media, “news”, and the entertainment business, or in thinking that this enables them to, in simple terms, control the public mind? Are they misguided in thinking that control of money is in the hands of Jews, or in thinking that the ability to create money from nothing confers unmatched power? Or, are they misguided in thinking that Jews exercise their power in their own group interest? Or what? 23
Posted by dc on January 28, 2012, 02:40 PM | # To my mind JRichards has some weaknesses. The worst is his exaggerating of plausibility into certainty. Less important is his weak English (I wish he would take the time to get the word “comprise” right), and his distracting style (the continual elision of “is” for example). But here’s the thing. I have been reading economics and history intensively for the last two years (say two hundred volumes and more - biblio on request) and so far, so far as I can tell, the man has invariably hit the nail on the head. Sadly, in point of fact the jews are our misfortune. And none of Richards’ denigrators has met his assertions with more than sneers and abuse. You, Graham are one of the worst offenders. Perhaps Richards is juvenile, and American and perhaps as well a great ninny, but all of that remains to be shown and the weight of historical evidence is on his side. Do you have no awareness of how your own arguments are inflated with easy conventional assumptions? The man’s arguments must be met, otherwise dismissive sneering makes you ridiculous. You have the brain-power certainly, and I hope the time, can you not take JR to task mistake by mistake? Until you do he is clearly your master. 24
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 28, 2012, 03:54 PM | # I appreciate the fact that J. Richards has driven the money-changing, Jew-exclupating, Haller from this site. It gives us an opportunity to more closely examine the second generation trolls as they pop up in the wake of this cleansing. 25
Posted by Helvena on January 28, 2012, 04:22 PM | # “can you not take JR to task mistake by mistake” LOL, my dear Man, if he could have he would have. Hat tip to you Richards. You make me proud to be a Yank - an that ain’t easy any more @Silver, “confronting the world on its own terms” - what terms would those be? I certainly don’t see the Jew confronting reality, if they did they wouldn’t need the lie of the six million. 26
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 28, 2012, 07:38 PM | # OK let’s a very brief discussion on what separates real enquiry from a bad impression of it. One key concept – falsification. One of the tenets behind science is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design to investigate it must be inherently falsifiable. If a hypothesis is not open to falsification it generally regarded as pretty worthless. Now the ‘conspiracy mindset’ doesn’t necessarily deal with inherently non-falsifiable hypotheses sensu stricto. However via the mechanisms of confirmation bias and the asymmetrical use of evidence they soon become so. What do I mean? All the evidence, even the most flimsy, that seemingly supports the cherished hypothesis is lauded and endlessly pushed while all counter evidence, even of the strongest kind, is ignored. Worse still in the world-view of the conspiracy-minded people offering counter-arguments and contrary evidence are ‘controlled opposition’ or even part of the conspiracy themselves. Another feature of such discourse is the scatter-gun approach: mountains of tangential and often irrelevant material is offered as secondary and tertiary level etc., ‘evidence’ to support the primary assertion. It is if the mere quantity of evidence (however dubious) is more important than the quality of evidence in deciding matters. It can also be a tactic to use or discuss legitimate secondary issues in an to attempt to given creditability to the entire concept scheme. Let me give an example. Say the hypothesis is: “Space lizards secretly rule the world and are the root cause of all the misery and evil in the world.” The proposer of the above hypothesis then gives a very detailed and strong lecture on American post-war foreign policy. Then they suggest that American foreign policy is all really a consequence of the machination of the space lizards. It’s obvious that this rhetorical manoeuvre is an attempt to give creditability to the primary idea via displaying some creditability on a secondary subject which is only tenuously (if at all) linked to the central premise. Yet the device of using an extended web of so-called evidence also serves an important structural role in maintaining the hypothesis under consideration. Normally several independent sources of evidence adds additional support to a given hypothesis but in ‘crackpot world’ should anyone actually go to the bother of providing strong and undeniable counter evidence the next obvious rhetorical move by our conspiratorial minded person would be: “well factor A was never than important in retrospect and we still have factor B, C, D, et al.” Previously auxiliary lines of evidence can suddenly take centre stage in an open-ended process. It is a poor parody of genuine enquiry. In short the ‘web of evidence’ allows the goalpost for falsification to be constantly moved. It’s like attempting to nail jelly to the wall in order to falsify the oh so cherished hypothesis. Given that one suspects that no possible evidence would ever result in proposer of the hypothesis to substantively revise their hypothesis or accept it has been falsified then sadly we are in the realm of a non-reality based, intellectually dishonest, form of degraded quasi-theological thought. For example let’s take 9/11. I am not a civil engineer. It would take me enormous amount of resources in both time and effort to know enough to even approach having an informed opinion on the technical questions at hand. And even if someone did invest all that effort in getting up to speed on the issues, yet still rejected the proposed ‘alternative’ hypothesis they would probably be dismissed in the way I have described above or the goalposts would be arbitrarily changed by the progenitor of the ‘alternative’ hypothesis. Ten or fifteen minutes or so spend writing a commentary on a blog is not generally regarded as a serious investment of intellectual effort. Hence to engage with such people/ideas in anything like a very serious and costly way is a totally waste of someone’s valuable time and efforts as those on the other side of the argument are themselves deeply unserious in their methods of analysis and thought. They are only serious about maintaining their baseline monomania (of whatever type) no matter what.
27
Posted by Leon Haller on January 28, 2012, 07:47 PM | # And here I was merely intrigued by the interesting article title ...
No, this is totally wrong. No one here has said that the presence of Jews in Western nations has been helpful to white EGI. And no, it is not necessary to refute or even engage every crackpot theory. Time, like other resources, is scarce, and intelligent men understand the kinds of issues and arguments which merit their investment of it. That is how intellectual and scientific progress are made. I, too, on several occasions, have used the term “monocausal” in reference to Richards - though there’s a bit more to it than mere tiresome iteration. His method consists of 1) “looking for the Jew” (or its proxy, “bankers” or The Money Power) behind all issues, even where that link is tenuous; 2) finding whatever evidence he can in support of his pet theory without considering counterevidence (indeed petulantly dismissing disagreements as signs of maliciousness, ‘trolldom’, etc); 3) providing blizzards of linked references to convey a false air of research and expertise, which, however, upon closer examination, often are revealed to be barely relevant, and certainly not conclusive; and more broadly, 4) seeking to enshrine his perspective as this site’s new Ruling Orthodoxy by means of using his (incomprehensibly granted) admin privileges to a) threaten removal of comments from those disagreeing with him (that threat intended to have a ‘chilling’ effect on future challenges), and b) overwhelm his opponents (most of whom, let us remember, do not have editorial or admin privileges) through the sheer number of posts relentlessly advancing the same macro-thesis across an array of ostensibly separate topics. The real question is not whether Richards is right in his arguments, but whether his methods conduce to growing the influence of this site, or otherwise advancing white EGI. I suggest they do not. As I opined earlier this month, it must be a fact of some relevance that Richards has managed to alienate commenters of wildly different perspectives and argumentational and even prose styles - from, inter alia, Greg Johnson to Graham Lister, from Silver to Hunter to “uh” to Dasein - whose only commonality is that they are the most intelligent contributors. Is allowing Richards such prominence a wise decision? 28
Posted by Leon Haller on January 28, 2012, 08:16 PM | # Lister @26 I was writing my comment @27 as you were writing yours. Well said. I don’t think anything in my comment detracts from anything in yours. There is a difference between the intelligent unearthing of real conspiracies (eg, the abundant evidence that has come to light over the decades since Pearl Harbor that FDR and possibly Churchill knew in advance of Japanese plans for a strike, or the Jewish roles in the US Civil Rights and immigration loosening movements), or the debunking of poorly established ‘facts’ (eg, that Jews in Nazi camps were used to make soap bars), even if that debunking originally issued from morally problematic sources, and simpleminded ‘conspiracism’. The latter is more interesting as psychology than anything else. Some persons seemingly have a deep psychic need to reduce the world’s complexity to some kind of simplified order, even at the expense of empirical accuracy. “Quasi-theological” is, regrettably, quite apposite here (not that all theology is merely an expression of this psychic propensity, as a Dawkins might allege). Conspiracism is really the bane (or one of them) of movements seeking to radically challenge a particular status quo. It seems to be difficult for many to be simultaneously radical and sober. I have many ex post facto disagreements on conservative strategy with the late William F. Buckley, Jr., but I think he was right to have disassociated his movement from psychological extremists (ideological ones was a wholly different matter). The Cult of Diversity is eminently contestable, and on all grounds, from the moral to the scientific. But to challenge it successfully politically, both psychologically and morally problematic elements (conspiracists and Nazis) must be marginalized. It is getting rather late in the day to do this. 29
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 28, 2012, 08:31 PM | # I knew I should’ve knocked on wood. There are none that I respect less or could possibly ever expect less than those in deference to pay who cater what they do and say to the Kapos of Kosher Korrectness And who are, by nature, so feckless they can’t by light of day see the universalist KKK 30
Posted by dc on January 28, 2012, 08:50 PM | # “I was not angry since I came to France” ... ad Lister What you have written is terrible, terrible, and dishonest to the core. The introduction of “space-lizards” is so cheap and facile as to be utterly despicable. Richards has a case, and it is a case which you evade and misrepresent. Sorry old bean, but you have lost caste completely. The extent of jew money power can be disputed, but not its existence. The extent of jew control of the demolition of the WTC can be argued, but not its preponderance. The power of money issue can be analysed more nicely, but it cannot be disputed. The murderous tendencies of the tribe are often in stark contrast with the decency of individuals, but that says nothing against the murderous proclivities of the tribe. Your “web of evidence” reference is surely a reference to the jew idiocy of Pressac, is it not? Richards has bravely stuck his neck out, and you have neither the nerve nor the facts to face him head on. The challenge was to find a single issue on which Richards is mistaken or otherwise in the wrong. You have produced nothing. You show yourself to be a dishonest, evil man. ad Haller You cheap bullshit artist. You boast and skite from morn til night and produce ... little or nothing ... you will choke on your own dirt. 31
Posted by passerby on January 28, 2012, 10:02 PM | #
I love when the self-righteous go on fact-finding missions like this! Now we know that Graham Lister is evil, and Leon Haller shall grovel in the dust like a serpent. 32
Posted by passerby on January 28, 2012, 10:07 PM | #
Monomaniacs on the internet are time-wasters and reflexively judge anyone not playing their game “controlled opposition”. Got it. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on January 28, 2012, 10:46 PM | # dc, You’re altogether too breathless and febrile for an old alleged oldster. You have completely managed to misunderstand Dr. Lister’s central point. Who is disputing the existence of Jewish financial power, and its political uses? Certainly no one in these parts. Your ‘bibliography’ undoubtedly does not contain any tomes on subjects like logic, ‘critical thinking’, argumentation theory, or the like. Perhaps you should acquire and read some. Barker, The Elements of Logic, is a standard textbook, and even contains helpful exercises to see if you’re ‘getting it’. Be sure to purchase any accompanying answer supplement. Best of luck, old bean.
Ah, well, Graham, despite our myriad and unbridgeable differences, it seems we do agree on something. MR is nicely dividing into two factions: the rationalists and the nutters. Only one can emerge victorious. 34
Posted by dc on January 28, 2012, 11:39 PM | # ad Heller So much for your rubbish. From my shelves: Principia Mathematica Frege to Gödel Mathematical Logic (Barwise) Language, Truth and Logic (Mendelsohn) (Abraham Robinson) (Rudolf Carnap) Mathrmatical Thought (Evert W Beth) Formal Methods (Evert W Beth) The Core Model (Doob) Frege to Gödel Theory of Models ( Addison Henkin and Barwise) Sets, Models and Recursion Theory (Crossley) (Smullyan) (Crossley) Konstruktive Nonstandard Analysis (Schnitzspan) Foundations of Mathematical Logic (Curry) The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen Notes on Logic (Lyndon) Models and Ultraproducts (Bell and Slomson) Admissable Sets and Structures (Takeuti and Zaring) That’s halfway you little prick. And there remains what I have read in the libraries. Would you like to know what others think of me? Have you ever been invited to Oberwolfach? Do you even know what Oberwolfach is? Die in shame 35
Posted by dc on January 28, 2012, 11:59 PM | # More for Herr Heller, You have the effrontery to impugn my honesty, and in doing so you expose your foolishness, I am what I say. I freely admit that my brain is weakening, though god forbid I should ever be reduced to your level. Here, let me offer a little friendship. Please Herr Heller find me a reference on economics who is not a jew or bound to the jews. I will read him with great pleasure. Inzwischen heisst es (denn der Mann ist ja ehrlich alt): Ein Heller und ein Batzen, die waren beide mir - ja, mir. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on January 29, 2012, 01:44 AM | # dc, The last name is Haller. Try to remember that at least. If you are so gifted in mathematics and allied subjects, then why are your comments so frequently filled with misrepresentations and worse, misinterpretations, of what others say? In the anonymous internet, one can only be judged on what one writes. If you are so intelligent, btw, you should be able to see through Richards’s nonsense. The founder of the (correct) Austrian School, Carl Menger, was not a Jew (not that being Jewish disqualifies one from offering intellectual or scientific truths). Benjamin Anderson was not a Jew. Hayek, though distantly related to Jews (a cousin of Wittgenstein, who was only 3/4 Jewish), claimed not himself to have any Jewish ancestry (this hasn’t stopped both Jewish chauvinists, and Nazi collectivists, from claiming he was Jewish; Rothbard has also mentioned that Hayek was not Jewish). There are many other leading free market economists who were not Jews. (Garrett Hardin, a solid racialist, as well as brilliant scholar and, I’m certain, non-Jew, was a self-described “market man”, despite also being ecologically and biologically sound.) Of course, Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist, was Jewish. So what? BTW, how have I impugned (in this thread) your honesty? Using the word “alleged” above? Though come to mention it, I do doubt your claims, at least by implication, of intellectual excellence. Such excellence must be demonstrated, and you have yet to do so, to my recollection. 37
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 29, 2012, 06:34 AM | # Evil? Bit strong don’t ya think? Misguided, misinformed, incorrect, wrong might all logically come before evil, yes? So Prof. Logic if my comments are so silly/dishonest your fine analytical skills should have no problem running a horse and cart through them, yes? Carry on. I’m all for a sober, cool, rational, evidence-based discussion. So certain groups solve the intra-group coordination problem more effectively than others (it’s not a conspiracy organised by 12 shadowy figures telling everyone else what to do but rather how do particular groups of individual social-actors manage to act in strongly collective ways). In turn, certain groups are maximally effective at gaining leverage over ‘the system’ and highly potent within the context of the inter-group competition that inevitably marks any complex society. Is that not wacky enough for you? Not esoteric enough? Every US politician has to beg for Jewish approval and money. For example Newt Gingrich http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/28/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-billionaire?newsfeed=true It’s only a slight bit of hyperbole to describe the USA as Israel’s first and most important quasi-colony. But even that idea could be contested as being over the top. As Leon Haller nicely phrased the issue - some people need to reduce the world’s complexity to some kind of simplified order, even at the expense of empirical accuracy. Everyone does that a little bit but go too far and it rapidly becomes a quite a hideous and counter-productive trade-off. No-one is in denial that black propaganda/black ops/conspiracies have sometimes occurred in history but that modern history and society is, in toto, a ‘conspiracy’ aka conspiracism is too absurd for any serious person to engage with for the reasons I previously gave. 38
Posted by Helvena on January 29, 2012, 08:59 AM | # “So certain groups solve the intra-group coordination problem more effectively than others (blah, blah blah). In turn, certain groups are maximally effective at gaining leverage over ‘the system’ and highly potent within the context of the inter-group competition that inevitably marks any complex society.” Thank you Lister, this is exactly why the Jews must be dealt with as a group and not as corrupt *evil* individuals. (I don’t like the word *evil* it smacks of Judo-Christianity emotionalism). No majority will tolerate a minority rule. The Blacks didn’t in South Africa, the Germans didn’t in Germany and we will not in the States. Rabbi Dr. Manfred Reifer, summed up the situation of his race with great insight in 1933. “...The German Jews fed themselves on false hope, overlooked reality, dreamed of cosmopolitanism, of the time of Lessing and Mendelssohn. And this expressed itself in two ways; either they became Liberals, or they became the standard-bearers of Socialism. Both fields of activity furnished new food to anti-Semitism. Richards is quite right, one of the ways the Jews exercise their group interest is through control of the money supply by a few well placed members. No conspiracy, just plain fact. If the Blacks, Asians or Martians were operating in the same way I’d have a problem with them. As my sixth grade teacher said, “When you’re at the top, there is no place to go but down.” 39
Posted by Helvena on January 29, 2012, 09:09 AM | # BTW Lister, you haven’t met the challenge of disproving Richards arguments, you’ve only lectured us on rhetoric and employed the disparaging term of conspiratorist, which has as much cache with me as racist and anti-Semite. Try to do better. 40
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 29, 2012, 12:23 PM | # There has been some mention, upthread, about Evil. This subject has been on my mind for several months now. I remember in the wake of 911 when George Bush was launching the War Against Terror. He referred to his (and supposedly our) enemies as “Evildoers”. It seemed extremely juvenile to me at the time. I had abandoned belief in any knowable God back in the 1980’s, and, as a side-effect, the concept of Evil had fallen away unnoticed. After taking notice of the J.Q., and applying myself to its investigation since 2006, my concept of Evil has been resurrected, but God remains absent, or present only by inference. 41
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 29, 2012, 12:56 PM | # Apophenia is the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 and defined as the unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness, but it has come to represent the human tendency to seek patterns within random (and/or unrelated) phenomena in general, as with gambling, paranormal phenomena, religion, and even attempts at scientific observation. In statistics, apophenia is known as a Type I error - the identification of false patterns in data. It may be compared with a so called ‘false positive’ in other test situations. It’s part and parcel of the conspiracy mindset and the pseudo-scientific. Bruno Latour suggests that the widespread popularity of conspiracy theories in mass culture may be due, in part, to the pervasive presence of Marxist-inspired critical theory and similar ideas in academia since the 1970s. Latour suggests that about 90% of contemporary social criticism in academia displays aspects of one of two approaches which he terms “the fact position and the fairy position.” The reductionist “fact position” is anti-fetishist, arguing that “objects of belief” (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts onto which power is projected; the “fairy position” argues that individuals are totally dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces (e.g., economics, gender). “Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?” asks Latour: no matter which position you take, “You’re always right!” Latour notes that such social criticism has been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including the 9/11 Truth movement: “Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social never-land, many of the weapons of social critique.” @Helvena You have obviously failed to understand my point as to why never-ending discussions with ‘tinfoil hat brigade’ are pointless but I’ll make this my last exception (just for you). OK sadly I wasted 5 minutes of my life watch this video of David Icke talking about the wondrous upcoming events of 2012 as this seem the trend du jour within such circles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSsMjEoc9HM Note the rhetorical style – the dropping in of scientific terminology to add gravitas and gain creditability with his audience etc. Now Mr. Icke makes the startlingly bold prediction that the Earth will stop rotating for around three days this year. OK the probability of such an event asymptotically approaches zero yet Mr. Icke is of the opposite view. OK so if his prediction does not come to pass, will he and his followers admit they are buffoons? Very obviously not. Why? Well Mr. Icke has some wiggle-room – some flexibility of interpretation. He could say that he never said it was a certainty. New factors (unknown at the time he declared his hypothesis) kicked-in and in the absence of which he would have been correct etc. He was counter-factually correct! Now both he and his true-believers will rationalise why Icke was correct all-along in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary. To their own self-satisfaction they will have explained his failure and it can safely slip down the ‘memory-hole’ and the whole farrago will carry on its merry ways. Mr Icke can by is own definition never be wrong. He is always right! So let’s return to your ‘theory of everything’ the all-powerful J-aliens. Not only is the J-word being your ‘go-to answer’ to every difficult issue or socio-economic problem both empirically and conceptually inadequate, it is also a form of political defeatism (if they are all-powerful why bother?). So given your perspective what is the solution – a future world in which your least-favourite ethnic group have been eliminated? It’s intellectually nugatory and emotionally infantile to think the Elysian fields are but one simple (or simple-minded) move away. As I have suggested such thoughts incorporate the juvenilia on display in all forms of ‘political theology’. And now I’m going to watch more Icke - this conspiracy is getting bigger! 42
Posted by Helvena on January 29, 2012, 02:07 PM | # @Lister, no one has said that if the Jews were silenced utopia would result, that is your straw man. I’m well aware that a freed slave isn’t a king. Can we agree that no large group of people (how ever they define themselves) will accept the rule of an alien people for long? You admit that the Jews have successfully “leverage the system” to their own advantage in #37 (not to the benefit of all Americans) and by doing so you also admit that they are an alien group. I suppose it would be sporting of me to say well done, they win, but I won’t because my view is the competition continues. If the system must be brought down to get the Jewish boot off my neck, I have no problem with that. At this point the system and the Jew are like the chicken and the egg. And I think the Blacks, Arabs and Asians would agree with me. 43
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 29, 2012, 02:17 PM | #
If we follow this line of thought, we might also postulate that particularistic tendencies within the projection of meaning upon random phenomena are genetically influenced, and thus be rid of the universalist mandate. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on January 29, 2012, 02:48 PM | # As a scientifically-inclined Christian non-scientist I generally oppose anything too bizarre (while maintaining the requisite open-mind: if the evidence is good, I’ll reconsider my view of something). I will believe in God, but nothing supernatural beyond that (which makes it a bit difficult to remain a Catholic; my dad is Protestant, and I often feel closer to him and his view, which is not very religious, and certainly very unsuperstitious). The real problem with the most successful of unconventional hypotheses is that they are so constructed as to be virtually unfalsifiable. Marxism was like that. If you disagreed with it you were either a slave to the ideology of your class, or else were acting maliciously (I wonder if Richards didn’t begin as a Marxist?). Another example, one that actually bothers me, is the whole alien abduction phenomenon. I wonder what others think of it. Normally, I would dismiss it with an open mind: give some proof beyond recovered ‘memories’, and I’ll reconsider. But the ubiquity of the phenomenon, as well as the fact that various reputably trained persons have come to believe in its reality, gives me pause. (Sorry for going off topic, but I do wonder about it.) 45
Posted by Søren Renner on January 29, 2012, 04:01 PM | # Now I can go to my ancestors with a contented mind. Finally, Bruno Latour has been honored in a Majority Rights comment thread. Bravo. 46
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 29, 2012, 04:20 PM | # Leon I think on the alien abduction thing…what is more likely that certain sad-sacks are mistaken and/or deluded in their testimony or that aliens actually gave them an anal probe? We also might note that the aliens always turn up in the middle of rural Alabama and not say Time Square. The appropriate use of Occam’s Razor and parsimony is no bad thing. Leon I know we do disagree about quite a number of things but do you note how I have been attacked as evil, pathetic et al., by the fruitcake tendency but not substantively engaged with? It rapidly becomes very dull dealing with the same tired tropes ad infinitum. Discussion unless directed and with a purpose soon degenerates into ‘white noise’ or actually ‘brown noise’ would be more apt. I think I probably do have better things to do unless MR becomes a bit more serious and focused. 47
Posted by Helvena on January 29, 2012, 04:51 PM | # Bye Bye Lister, go and parade as a pseudo-intellectual somewhere else and take your sidekick (pee-on) with you. 48
Posted by dc on January 29, 2012, 04:56 PM | # My apologies to all for over-reacting and the vulgar hauling of books off my shelves. I am sorry to have wasted your time. I am sorry to admit that Herr Haller goaded me into over-reaction. Until they put up or shut up, Lister and “Haller” are not worth a farthing “kein Heller wert”. The matter is serious and merits serious attention, else why are we here? Haller and Lister work to derail any focused discussion. Or am I misled? JRichards gives us a historical and economic view that is substantiated by the record. I would like to fight Richards to test the truth of his assertions (really, the insinuations about “truck bombs” must be made explicit, etc.). I cannot fight, I am too old and weak. But I can fairly claim to have read the field, and Richards owns it. I resolve to show more humility and deserved modesty. EXCEPT for dealings with shams, frauds, smearers, etc. 49
Posted by Helvena on January 29, 2012, 05:07 PM | # Dunno, I think *Hell*er was quite fitting and he responded to it, soooo…mission accomplish. 50
Posted by J Richards on January 29, 2012, 06:32 PM | # To borrow Helvena’s term, it’s the Jew-wailing chorus, again!I’ve discussed many aspects of the Norwegian incident. The post has 3 links, two internal, one external. The internal links are to a page where the incident is analyzed and a page where people are allowed to comment on this analysis. The analysis starts with an extensive discussion of logistics. No one wailing above has bothered to address the logistics. The analysis moves on to a review of the manifesto allegedly prepared by Breivik. The review is supported by extensive page references, and the entire manifesto is provided for verification purposes. It was shown that the manifesto couldn’t have been written by people other than Jews. Nobody wailing above has attempted to account for the contents of the manifesto in an alternative manner. The analysis mentions some of the people that emerge as those allegedly in contact with Breivik and also being the recipients of his emailed manifesto shortly before the attacks, and these turn out to be Jews like Fjordman and Nygren. Fjordman has an extensive history of disseminating Jewish propaganda. No one wailing deems this of any importance. The comments on the analysis mention the bogus rationale behind the mental illness Breivik allegedly suffers from, easily falsified by the manifesto he allegedly wrote. No one wailing could be less interested in this. The comments on the analysis mention the case of research Professor Ola Tunander. He got in major trouble for his report on the Norway incident, where he indicated that one person couldn’t possibly have pulled it off, and a state must have carried it out. Obviously, this state couldn’t be Norway as a state may pull off a false flag, but the leaders wouldn’t kill their own children as part of the false flag. Tunander attempted to save his ass by saying that it’s been suggested that Israel carried it out, and was blasted for it in terms of his suggesting that Israel may have carried it out. This was news in Sweden and Norway. The Jews wisely kept it out of the Anglo media. Those wailing here have no comment on this. Now, this post is an addendum to the previous analysis and comments, and addresses the latest bizarre claim regarding Breivik. The complainants don’t wish to bother with the bizarreness of the claim reported in the mainstream media. Dr. Graham Lister @16 even says, “such over the top silliness, as displayed by the above OP, has a seriously chilling effect upon any sober and serious discussion of the wider subject,” apparently the reason why he hasn’t bothered to discuss the facts pertaining to the Norwegian incident! What should I say? Keep wailing! 51
Posted by J Richards on January 29, 2012, 06:39 PM | # Some observations on the Jew-wailing chorusJamesUK pretends that his questions @2, 5 haven’t been answered [one need only go through the two internal links]. Some attempt to mock the argument by bringing in Lizards, Icke… anything but the evidence [Au Contraire @1, Bill Yancey @4, Rusty Mason @7, Dr. Lister @26, 41]. The great “anti-Semite” Alaric is a singing a very different tune @12. Hunter Wallace @15 claims to be laughing and even expresses concern over MR’s reputation, but considering how thoroughly he was exposed at MR for being an agent of Jews, and exposed himself further in the way he [assisted by his pal Matt Parrott] responded to this exposure in the elitism and 9/11 threads, Wallace should be smiling at MR going downhill, but he expresses concern about it! I think he’s weeping. Dr. Lister @26 goes into a tirade about falsification, never bothering to address the topic of the post, the Norwegian incident, but bringing in space Lizards! He then brings up 9/11, specifically the civil engineering aspects of it, but he ignores that I’ve responded to the falsification issue regarding 9/11. There are so many things about 9/11 that don’t require any special scientific or technical education to piece together, and if Dr. Lister’s interested, he’s been more than welcome, for months, to provide a coherent explanation of the missing surveillance videos at the airports; the hijackers who were found alive; the fireproof passport and others in the phony trail of evidence implicating Muslims; instances of Mossad and Western intelligence operatives caught pretending to be Al-Qaeda; hard evidence of insider trading shortly before 9/11; multiple TV channels predicting in advance that WTC 7 is expected to fall when fire had never brought down a steel frame structure like it; BBC, CNN and FOX reporting that WTC7 had fallen before it did, reading from a pre-prepared script; a large number of Jews found in key positions to pull off 9/11; etc. But Dr. Lister never bothers with these, and comes up with the most egregious straw men and falsehoods about my arguments! Even though dc and Helevena ask Dr. Lister to address real or claimed facts about the the right issues [The Norwegian massacre since that’s what the post is about, or other ongoing topics, such as money], he keeps evading the factual bases behind the arguments, continuing his tirade: apophenia, conspiracism, Icke, Bruno Latour,... anything except the facts pertaining to the matter. Haller lies about me @27 and trolls @44, when he brings in alien abductions. According to Haller, I go around looking for evidence implicating the Jew. It’s on record that as of a few years ago I had nothing against Jews as individuals or as a group. It’s only after learning the truth behind 9/11 and the Holocaust hoax did I make an attempt to understand Jews better and ended up disliking them as a group [not as individuals]. I’ve arrived at my stance in a manner opposite to what Haller accuses me of. I also don’t call people malicious or trolls frivolously. I think that anyone can see that those who refuse to discuss any facts pertaining to the Norwegian incident but bring in, instead, space lizards, Icke and alien abductions are trolling. Haller even accuses me of threatening to remove comments that disagree with me, which is a malicious lie. I’d like people to respond to the facts or data. When they repeatedly refuse and keep bringing in the same refuted assertions over and over, it’s time to tell them to behave or end up in trash. Haller doesn’t even acknowledge how generous I’ve been with him. I didn’t threaten him with trashing until he repeatedly refused my requests for a response to some of his claims and kept bringing up the same refuted arguments, and then I gave him repeated warnings. I’ve even let him violate a final warning more than five times now. Finally I had to tell him that I’ve no choice but to send him to trash, but need to wait to put up this information on a book that I’ll ask him to refute or acknowledge if he wishes to continue participating here further. So Haller’s been taking advantage of all this and still accuses me of threatening to remove comments that disagree with me. Keep wailing Jewish filth! 52
Posted by J Richards on January 29, 2012, 06:43 PM | # Dr. Graham Lister @16
Yet another strawman. I’ve told you before I focus on Jews because in my estimation they’re the worst problem facing us. This doesn’t mean that Jews are always to blame or exclusively run the world. Zalmoxis @18
These pictures are digitally edited. You could start with an actual person, photograph him in different positions and digitally edit his face to create a fictitious person.
I don’t think he’s praised Breivik.
Many nationalists aren’t Christian, let alone Christian Zionists. Now, there’s no shortage of pro-Israel nationalist groups, but these are phony/controlled opposition.
Norwegians lost control over key aspects of their governance much before WWII: In 1933, when Johan Mowinckel (Jew?) was running the Norwegian government (http://www.regjeringen.no/), the freedom of the press ended. In the interests of “freedom of expression” (for the marginals), his government took over private broadcasting, and set up NRK (Norsk Riks Kringkasting). Sure there was a little bit of opposition, but Mowinckel just went right ahead with his plans. (Håvard Tangen og Geir Martin Pilskog, Studentar i målstrid -Den nynorske delen av folkefronten, kapittel 3 1930-1945, p. 158) The Jewish management team moved right on over to London during the war, and used the greeting “Dette er London”. (Hans T. Wiig, NRK’s History in Brief, November 13, 2007, http://fil.nrk.no/informasjon/about_the_nrk/1.3698330)
Christianity developed in opposition to Judaism (e.g., the condemnation of the Pharisees who’d come up with the Talmud and hence Talmudism or its modern designation, Judaism). Bolshevism is relatively recent. The Vienna school isn’t even 20 years old. 53
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 29, 2012, 07:55 PM | # I found these videos interesting. In a two part interview, Sheik Imran Hosein outlines his views on the role of Iran in geopolitics and the evolution of the anti-Christ. 54
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 29, 2012, 07:56 PM | # People are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories (or ideas with overtones of conspiracy) if they feel powerless in the face of large social authorities or institutions, and not part of the mainstream of society. This is supported by the observation in the USA that beliefs in conspiracy theories tend to be stronger amongst members of ethnic minority groups. If we accept a conspiracy theory to be true, we are more likely to accept explanations that are consistent with a conspiracy. Sociologists suggest that these minority groups feel politically disenfranchised or discriminated against and this gives rise to higher levels of belief in conspiracy theories. See for example: “I Heard it Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture” by P.A. Turner http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heard-Through-Grapevine-African-American-Culture/dp/0520089367/ We can also hate gaps or inconsistencies in our knowledge. We want ‘closure’ in our thinking and to believe that we live in a stable and comprehensible world, so we might seek out an overly simple account of a complex event or phenomenon, or indeed a simple ‘catch-all’ explanation for a wide range of events (did someone say monomania?). As a rule the conspiracy-minded tend to accept any supporting evidence, however weak, at face value while subjecting contrary evidence to much more critical evaluation. People show other cognitive biases in how they evaluate ambiguous evidence (in order to rationalise away any suggestion of the empirical inadequacy/falsification of their idée-fixe). So if we accept a conspiracy theory to be true we are more likely to accept explanations that are consistent with a conspiracy and less likely to accept evidence that runs against a conspiracy account. Hence the secure standards of evidence-based discourse are not respected or acknowledged. Even extremely weak and/or exiguous ‘positive’ evidence is utilised in explanatorily inflationary manner. Understanding the emergence and shape of liberal modernity, in toto, probably requires an answer that is greater than one or two words. It’s always rather sad to see angry ignorance on parade. 55
Posted by Helvena on January 29, 2012, 09:31 PM | # “It’s always rather sad to see angry ignorance on parade.” I hear you there Lister, it breaks my heart to see how you lap up theory after theory all the while denying common sense and your own ability to judge for yourself. Instead you kneel to the *experts* that tell you what to think, sociologists tend to be the worst. You are like a child that goes to a Priest to ask if god exists. Lis, buddy, what do you think he’s gonna say? “Understanding the emergence and shape of liberal modernity”, that’s precious Lister. Are we on the dawn of a new and wonderful age? Is this the beginning of the end of the group competition (theory) you mentioned earlier? Did you sell rugs in a previous life Lister? 56
Posted by zalmoxis on January 30, 2012, 01:39 AM | #
The backgrounds of the pics that were initially released had been digitally edited out, which is somewhat strange, but as far as I know there’s no evidence that the face was altered. Is there? Also there are older pics of Breivik that have surfaced and it appears to be a real person. And they do appear to have someone in custody, who looks like the guy in the pictures.
Then you didn’t look at the recent interview: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/01/interview-with-kevin-macdonald-2/ An excerpt (emphasis added):
I’d certainly call that “praise”. And “may be counterproductive”? You don’t have to read between the lines much here to realize that he basically approves of what Breivik did. Note that there is no discussion of the fact that he killed anti-Zionist protestors or of the fact that there’s no evidence whatsoever that these people were involved in bringing more immigrants into Norway.
You missed my point. I don’t doubt that there’s a lot of phony opposition. But support for Breivik was damn near unanimous among WNs. I think it’s hard to chalk it all up to consciously phony opposition. David Duke is the only prominent WN I can think of whose response to Breivik wasn’t essentially favorable. A majority of people on any pro-White blog or forum were cheering for Breivik right along with the Jews. The bottom line is, they saw a bunch of White kids with “Boikott Israel” signs get mowed down, and they responded favorably to it on an emotional level, then rationalized this feeling by saying that they “were the children of the elite that is destroying Norway”, which is rather obviously not true. As I said, killing the White elite has been a prominent theme of Jewish-controlled movements for a long time, including and especially Christianity. Plus, anyone born after WWII has been raised in an environment where slaughtering Nazis (i.e. enemies of the Jews) is held up as the paragon of moral virtue. That stuff doesn’t just immediately go away, even when you’re intellectually aware of what it is. So even though the vast majority of nationalists are non-Christian and anti-Jewish on a conscious level, you’ve still got a lot of messed up conditioning on a subconscious level. That’s why I compared these WNs to Christian Zionists (who rather overtly and explicitly oppose their own interests and defend those of the Jews). 57
Posted by zalmoxis on January 30, 2012, 02:07 AM | #
I don’t know what your point was with this. That Johan Mowinckel doesn’t appear to have been a Jew. In any case, Norway had a National Socialist government during WWII that was removed by external factors, i.e. American military force. There’s no reason to think that Norwegians are “committing suicide” and that some “White liberal elite” is to blame for Norway’s immigration problem. They had already solved their immigration problem. The problem in Europe in general is almost entirely external. Any European country that elected genuinely nationalist leadership would have its government overthrown by the US. Yes, they have laws against nationalism, but it is not their choice whether or not to have those laws. 58
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 30, 2012, 07:39 AM | # Yeah it’s a terrible insult to suggest someone is well-read – well I guess it must be in ‘middle-America’ - the zenith of human excellence and achievement. It really is quite unfitting for anyone to read more widely than “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and the latest David Duke title. You do know that liberal modernity and its attendant and accelerating pathologies is what you’re actually living through right now? Not my description of some future state of affairs. So back on topic was the repulsive Breivik a philosophical zombie, a hologram, perhaps a space alien? Nothing stupid like a philo-semitic Zionist psychopath obviously, who is ‘heroic’ or ‘laudable’ only to the terminally stupid and emotionally immature. 59
Posted by Helvena on January 30, 2012, 09:34 AM | # Did I accuse you of being well read Lister? Note I used the word pseudo-intellectual. Please read more carefully. What I really think you are Lister is a human sponge for bullshit. What else am I to think when that is all you spew here? You try to razzle dazzle with your read theories the implication being unless one know them they can’t possible understand the present situation. I’ll let you in on a well known secret Lister, there ain’t noth’en new under the sun and bullshit artist are a dime a dozen. zalmoxis, you seem to know what you’re talking about. I agree that WN sites and orgs. are full of idiots and Judas goats but I see the core concept of traditional society one worth holding on to. Where do people like me go? 60
Posted by Hunter Wallace on January 30, 2012, 01:03 PM | # This website could be turned around in five minutes if J Richards and “R news” and Soren and Big Von were demoted to commentators and Leon Haller and Graham Lister and Silver and “uh” few other people were put on the main page. It is the only blog on the racialist internet where thoughtless drivel posted on the main page provokes such elaborate comments. I can’t think of any other example. That is probably because people have been coming to this blog for over half a decade now and it has become a habit. What happened to GW? 61
Posted by @Wallace on January 30, 2012, 01:34 PM | # Willis there are thousands of blogs and micro-sites out there ploughing their own furrow, 95% of them are not going to agree with your list of priorities. So why not stop trying to direct the content on other people’s sites or visiting them to have hair pulling fights with ex-compadres of yours and go back to writing about provincial news in the deep south in your own back yard. 62
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 30, 2012, 03:21 PM | # @Helvena If you don’t want to have your beliefs ridiculed, don’t believe ridiculous things. However, I concede to you. I’m am an ignorant and ill-educated pseudo-intellectual. I even read French novels so am deeply suspect. You and Mr. Richards are obviously intellectually and politically first-rate (indeed part of any genuine elite of such people). But given your powerful analytical skills and deep perceptivity into history, culture, philosophy et al., can I ask why your ideas and insights remain so persistently marginal within American life? With such a powerful case and winning ideology why are so few convinced by it?
63
Posted by Hunter Wallace on January 30, 2012, 05:29 PM | # There is nothing wrong with this blog that can’t be easily fixed. It is a pretty good blog when you have people like GuessedWorker, Dan Dare, and Graham Lister sounding off about what it is going on in the UK. The exchanges between Lister and Haller are always thoughtful and fruitful. It would be even better if you could go back to the old days when MR had more of an Anglosphere focus with contributors from countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada talking about what was going on in these countries. I’m pining for the days of John Jay Ray and Steve Edwards. Hell, I would take Big Von sounding off with the occasional post about National Bolshevik futurism over J Richards/R news seeing a Jewish conspiracy in his cornflakes every morning. 65
Posted by Leon Haller on January 30, 2012, 09:55 PM | #
Welcome to the Monkey House, Graham! I seem to have preceded you here.
I have been likewise making this point for a while now. There is always an appropriate tension between censorship and an over-light editorial hand. I don’t think persons of obvious intelligence and seriousness should ever be censored based on divergent worldviews, even if some of them are widely regarded as repellent. Perhaps a hardcore race-liberal should be discouraged; but, on the other hand, his presence might stimulate nationalists to develop better justifications of their position. What ought to be censored are obvious trolls, idiots, non-argumentational harassers, and what I call ‘singletons’ (singleminded simpletons). The ideal approach for an editor would be gradually, through attrition via constant comment deletion, to narrow the parameters of commenting to a regular crew of serious-minded folk, persons who see themselves as part of a political collective trying to advance the nationalist paradigm (with serious newcomers welcomed, of course). This is what, eg, Chronicles does on its site (though they go overboard; they banned a serious, non-expletive using Christian paleocon like me, simply because I repeatedly challenged the editor’s lack of attention to the dangers that refraining from a white identity politics would pose over time to other, non-racialist aspects of the paleocon agenda). I’m very pressed for time these days, and my energies in this regard may come to be limited to the American nationalism site my friends are developing (or at least endlessly projecting). However, that site may be more activist-oriented than intellectual. What I originally liked about MR, and what has kept me here, is its international flavor. I enjoy interacting with European nationalists; indeed, reading about what is going on there (esp incl Britain) is what I like best about MR. The recent ‘turn’ to Judeo-obsessiveness is unfortunately causing me to lose interest here. Perhaps GW has died, and willed MR to JRichards? I know there have been GW-signed posts, but their paucity suggests forgery and a cover-up (now there’s a conspiracy I could credit!). Anyway, I wouldn’t mind starting an “intellectual nationalism” blogspot with comments encouraged. As editor I would govern heavily, with serious ends in mind. The purpose of nationalist sites is only secondarily to offer fora to ‘sound off’ (I suggest hitting the mainstream news site comment boards is more useful for doing that). Primarily, they should be about trying to develop the ideology, as well as forge activist communities, whether to mount political challenges, or simply to network, first for career purposes, more broadly, for building ties that will be useful in the West’s new Time of Troubles. 66
Posted by Hunter Wallace on January 31, 2012, 08:56 AM | # Has anyone else noticed that at a time when Newt Gingrich is running in the Florida Republican Presidential Primary as a candidate who is openly and explicitly controlled by the Jews that J Richards is over here talking about how Ron Paul is “controlled opposition” and how Utoya was a Mossad operation? Newt’s SuperPAC has been given $10 million dollars by the Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Newt is going around giving interviews about how Jonathan Pollard might need clemency, how the Palestinians are an “invented people,” how Mitt Romney vetoed kosher food in Massachusetts, how we need to go to war with Iran for Israel. I mean ... if you want to make the case that Jews are a negative influence on the American political system, you could easily do a much better job of it. This leads me to believe that J Richards is (1) either nuts or (2) someone who is trying to discredit all discussion of the Jewish Question by connecting the issue to tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. 67
Posted by Helvena on January 31, 2012, 09:14 AM | # @Lister, “ideas and insights remain so persistently marginal” I wasn’t aware that for an idea or insight to be of value it had to be popular? Perhaps that’s your democratic streak coming through. Which brings me to my next point. Wonderful to hear you read French novels. I assume you’ve read the greatest French novelist of the twentieth century, Louis-Ferdinand Celine. For the benefit of our other readers I’ll quote him in English, “Democracy is always and above all nothing but the veil of Jewish dictatorship.” pg.35 TRIFLES FOR A MASSACRE and this from Denis Fahey, “Democracy is simply another name for a money-lenders’ paradise” THE RULERS OF RUSSIA. I want to note here that ‘Democracy’ in these two quotes is the ‘Democracy’ practiced today, not the democracy of the Greeks. Thanks to leaders like Richards, Capt, GW and others, people are being exposed to these ideas but it takes time given the massive brainwashing and dumbing down of the Jewish century. Ideas have a way of taking root and growing, the fact that I’m here is evidence of that. 68
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on January 31, 2012, 09:34 AM | # Speaking of tinfoil hat time… There has been one useful result from this year’s Florida Virtual Reality Presidential Primary. This was to highlight Florida U.S. Senator Marc Rubio’s role in sabotaging all Florida state legislature initiatives on controlling illegal immigration. For general information, Marc Rubio is another of those “conservative Republicans” that some people claim will be our salvation. Rubio was a 2010 ‘Take Back’ centerfold boy for the Tea Party, “family values” voters and senile Conservative Republican geriatric patients in general. This is a typical result of 20 years of FAIR, Amren, vDare and Stormfront style ‘mainstream’ conservative Republican activism. No sale. Results like these are why I generally ignore those who claim we have to put everything else on hold to focus entirely on one or another noise-making ‘political’ initiative. We’ve had at least 67 years of this ephemeral electoral Hopium. The only ‘achievement’ I see from this are collapsed white birth rates that are largely the result of economic constraints. 69
Posted by MOB on January 31, 2012, 02:17 PM | # Rubio doesn’t make me think “Take Back,” “family values.” It makes me think “Israel,” “Israel.” http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7bb_1271828549 [Rubio on Israel - By John McCormack - Weeklly Standard - 4/20/2010] http://thinkprogress.org/security/2010/04/20/92584/rubio-israel-iran/ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267866/reaffirming-bond-between-america-and-israel-sen-marco-rubio - 5/23/2011 70
Posted by Lew on January 31, 2012, 02:45 PM | # J Richards: Hunter Wallace is right. You ought to address the implausible idea that Ron Paul is controlled opposition when the big Wall Street and Jewish money is behind Romney and Gingrich. Wall Street hates Ron Paul. This fact would seem to present a problem with your thesis. Ron and Rand Paul in the 60s.
71
Posted by lolzlzlz on January 31, 2012, 03:40 PM | #
That you consider those bizarre loners to be “leaders” is evidence that you’re a dumb broad, easily misled. 72
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on January 31, 2012, 03:44 PM | #
An equally implausible proposition is Ron Paul as a populist Friend of the Common Man. Not all “Big Money” is hostile to Ron and Rand Paul. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/17/in-search-of-ideologues-in-america Look at how the $75k+ demographic divides. The $75k+ crowd is where the Upper Half of Charles Murray’s 20%‘ers live. “Libertarians” are the single largest ideological grouping (31%) in the $75,000+ income group. “Liberals” are in second place at 29% while “Conservatives” trail behind at 21%. “Populists” are a distant 4th at a mere 13%. Libertarians almost out-weigh “Conservatives” & “Populists” together financially. But unfortunately not numerically. Ron and Rand Paul have a well founded belief their movement can displace most if not all “Conservatives” in the GOP elite structure. Part of “Conservatism” and “populism” are where GOP anti-immigration resistance is ideologically rooted. It’s reasonable to state that at best only 25% of the $75+ demographic opposes immigration. Libertarians (31%) and Liberals (29%) are ideologically opposed to any form of immigration control for various reasons. This is at least 60% of the $75k+ group. Considering the increasing gap opening up and the role played in politics by early money, the future of immigration as a conventional partisan political issue is clear and very dark. It’s more of what we’ve already been seeing. “Conservatism” including the “Religious Right” were the principle victims of the 2006 elections and the subsequent financial crisis. Among the $75k+ set there is an automatic opposition of at least 80%+ to any form of pro-white racial issues.
73
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 31, 2012, 04:45 PM | # @Helvena I note you have not got anything to say on the generic and rather untrustworthy nature of the ‘thought patterns’ of the conspiracy-minded. It probably isn’t intellectual best practice to exclusively only consider one ‘catch-all’ explanatory scheme/ hypothesis for everything. Even the most basic scientific experiment considers two hypotheses; the null hypothesis (nothing will happen) and the active hypothesis (by manipulating variable x phenomenon y should be observed). On truth and popular opinion – well it depends what you mean by truth. If one is considering features of the intransitive (ontologically independent) world then no truth is not a voting issue. For example, if quantum dynamics is a true theory such that it will not be superseded or replaced by a more complete and explanatory powerful theory then it is a truth for now, in the future and was a truth about reality even when humans didn’t know about it. Equally it would still be a truth about the world even if human beings had never discovered the phenomenon. But if we are discussing which was the best selling album in the USA last year we are effectively discussing a truth that was the outcome of a popular vote. Some truths are socially constructed, others are not. Obviously much more can be said on what truth is and how it’s defined but really it’s fairly pointless in this thread (which started with such nonsense as the unreality of a Norwegian murderer). But returning to your thoughts – no just because an idea is popular doesn’t make it automatically true but equally just because an idea is marginal doesn’t make it true either. Some ideas are marginal because they are only fit for the mad, bad and sad; some ideas like phlogiston theory or the idea that the Earth is flat are marginal because they are wrong. I know some people are very egocentric but the implication that because you have the views your do that is indicative of a more widespread ‘great awaking’ is evidence of your poor grasp of what evidence actually is. All that observation tells us is that you have the views you do and you visit certain websites. Even if you had a 1000 friends that all agreed with you this would only indicate 1000 people agree with you. If you wanted to say it was more significant (in some way) then you would be going beyond the available evidence. That’s fine so long as one knows that is what one is doing. The internet can often act as a echo chamber in which like-minded people have an inwardly directed dialogue that no-one else cares about in the slightest. Just because 100 or so neo-Nazis all agree to their own self-satisfaction that they are all brilliantly insightful ‘Nietzschean supermen’ doesn’t make it so does it? People can be prone to wishful thinking and all sorts of delusions. People can be stubborn in their beliefs, in spite of contrary evidence and obdurate to reason. That doesn’t make them right. Returning to the nature of evidence. I don’t care how many clichéd anti-Semitic screeds you cite (or for that matter how many websites that ‘independently’ claim 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ etc.) that doesn’t make them into substantive evidence. You could have a million of them but the evidential value of them would still be very low. A high quantity of very weak evidence doesn’t magically become compelling. A house of cards is still a house of cards no matter how high you might build it. The quality of evidence is a far more important consideration. OK I’m sure that GW can speak for himself, but in both his public persona and in private discussion I have no indication that he is part of your fruitcake tendency. Please don’t try to suggest he and Richards are similar. GW best thoughts are a million miles or so above you favourite. So let’s return to the important question. Let say you are correct; you and your friends have immense analytical powers and the finest political nous; you have a compelling and undeniable case and an extremely attractive ideology arising from that insight. Why is it that effectively no-one is interested? Obviously you have got nothing wrong so what is the explanation for total intellectual and political failure? I look forward to an answer that is longer than your two most beloved words in the world. P.S. What is Richards a leader of exactly? The “North American Association of Aluminum-Foil Bulk Buyers” perhaps? 74
Posted by Jimmy Marr on January 31, 2012, 05:08 PM | # I will remain skeptical about any politician until he openly declares his opposition to White geNOcide. If I see Ron Paul run under the banner of America Elect, I will consider him to be the most dangerous of our enemy’s shabbos goyim. 75
Posted by Hunter Wallace on January 31, 2012, 05:58 PM | # I’m disappointed in the Jew-crit blogosphere. Newt is on television doing robocalls in Florida accusing Mitt Romney of taking kosher food out of the mouths of elderly Holocaust victims. His sucking up to the Jews is so over the top that Chris Matthews is making fun of him on MSNBC. The mainstream left is talking about how Adelson bought Gingrich. You couldn’t have a better story for the Jew-crit blogosphere to jump on. Everyone is paying attention to Gingrich and essays about the subject would get lots of hits on search engines. It is kind of surprising that the Jew-crit blogosphere hasn’t had much to say about the gift horse of the year. Shouldn’t they be taking advantage of this golden opportunity to name the Jew? Why aren’t they doing it? It makes no sense. 76
Posted by Lew on January 31, 2012, 06:07 PM | # Excluding the personal digs at his interlocutors, I find Graham Lister @73 convincing. 77
Posted by FB on January 31, 2012, 06:25 PM | # HW, you’re assuming now that Jew Richards wants a serious discussion of Jewish power when everything indicates that his plan is to make the JQ radioactive and the purview of lunatics. Jew Richards’ game should be transparent even to the dullest mind. My own view is that GW is tired of MR and of blogging. It’s only a matter of time before he pulls the plug. I don’t think he cares anymore. MR is now Jew Richards and R-news all the time. With this sort of content and posting, this place should become a ghost town, the fact that it hasn’t yet is a testament to the force of habit of MR’s regulars. It’s also like watching a car crash in slow motion, I find myself staring in morbid fascination. 78
Posted by dc on January 31, 2012, 07:22 PM | # So much condemnation of Richards, so many pronouncements that he is reciting such obvious falsehoods that he can only be deranged or some sort of Judas goat. But no one demonstrates his errors, I doubt that he is making any. What really is obvious, is that the reasoned comments are all on his side. Pity that we’ve shifted so far off topic. Yes, whatever Breivik is, it seems more and more likely that the bombings and murders were a jew operation, perhaps one that fouled up in some way. It’s an interesting proposition and an important one. Here’s something else that’s obvious: people who write only for the sake of derailing the discussion are the best candidates for being written off as nutters or jew stooges. 80
Posted by Graham_Lister on January 31, 2012, 08:36 PM | # @FB and HW Well by making a topic so toxic it is only the territory of the apparently insane and unhinged obsessives it does rather have a chilling effect upon serious people discussing it in a sober and rational way – a type of buffoonery by association smearing tactic. It’s one possible explanation. Anyway there is only so much glorification of the Third Reich and associated ‘esoteric’ topics, only so much dull conspiracy-style talk, only so much Swiftianesque satire from the ‘manosphere’, only so much amateur ecology/clichéd dystopian Sci-Fi plots posturing as political thought etc., that can be endured before the grown-ups decide let the children play on their own and do something better. Jokes do start to become not quite as funny on the nth retelling. It’s odd that quality control isn’t an operational concern – obviously in the comments it’s difficult and perhaps unwise to restrict what people say but a free-for-all on the front page is very counter-productive in my view. @ DC – oh please Prof. Logic I was only offering up a set of reasons why conceptually conspiracy-style ‘thinking’ is often extremely faulty and frequency dishonest as you wanted to know why people were not taking on Richards and his specific ideas (including the idea that Breivik does not exist). I think sensible people have better and more useful things do to and discuss than the minutiae of such absurd ideas (I gave my reasons why). Now I invited you to tell me using your self-declared extremely powerful intellect what I have got wrong in my account of the generic features of ‘conspiracy-theories’. Could I modestly suggest that thinking about those issues (some thinking about thinking) might be of some general relevance if you still want to embrace conspiracy-theories such as the non-existence of a loathsome, self-described pro-Israel/Zionist murderer of a fair number of (bona fide European) young adults and teenagers. Oh wait you don’t have to as you declared me ‘evil’ so that must be the end of your logically compelling argument then Prof. Logic?
81
Posted by FB on January 31, 2012, 08:48 PM | # Is it possible that GW is afraid to move against Jew Richards because Jew Richards knows too much about GW, and since he’s a computer whizz he could hurt MR on his way out in revenge? I’m speculating since I don’t know why a lunatic or plant is given so much space to sabotage GW’s blog. 82
Posted by dc on January 31, 2012, 09:50 PM | # Graham “Prof. Logic” Oh please! You know very well that I was responding in a temper to Haller’s crap. I’ve apologized. Why mock?
This is not English; try to punctuate. What do you mean by “conceptually conspiracy-style ‘thinking’”? “is often extremely faulty”, and I suppose “often” not. So what? Is “frequency” supposed to be “frequently”? You write “why”, but give no reason for supposing Richards is commiting any fallacies
“I think sensible people have better and more useful things do”, then go and do them; why disrupt the thread with off-topic blather?
You are very glib. I’m sure you are capable in your field, here you are simply wordy and superficial. From one of my favourite poets: 83
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 01, 2012, 06:32 AM | # @DC OK you got me! That last one was not my best post. I am prone to typos especially late at night and posting when tired. However, the odd typo is probably less difficult to correct than the habit of faulty thinking. In a thread in which people apparently (and quite sincerely) take seriously a crackpot idea about a certain individual not being real, not actually existing (including yourself - you did massively praise the person promoting such a notion and his general ideas), it does not seem to me to be going massively ‘off topic’ to discuss the faulty thinking featured within generic ‘conspiracy talk’. Again I see no critique of that aspect of my previous comments. So how does it feel to be in the same territory, the same morass of stupidity, as say David Icke? Prolix you say. OK maybe but, on balance, I’d rather be a little over-wordy than to think all the problems of the world can be summed up in a sentence, or worse still in two words, i.e. “Jewish conspiracy”. I know it is a waste of time to attempt to have a rational discussion with apparently irrational people so let’s leave it there. 84
Posted by Helvena on February 01, 2012, 09:53 AM | # @Lister, “In turn, certain groups are maximally effective at gaining leverage over ‘the system’ and highly potent within the context of the inter-group competition that inevitably marks any complex society… You say leverage Lister, I say control. When the holocaust can be questioned openly in public schools, when people can question and ridicule the Jews as we question and ridicule the Arabs, when Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and others can say what they think (because of their experience) about the Jews or about people the Jews have deemed as ‘evil’ without losing their jobs then I will accept your leverage argument until then… Richards is a leader on GW’s site, I don’t see your articles up.
85
Posted by FB on February 01, 2012, 10:23 AM | # “So much condemnation of Richards, so many pronouncements that he is reciting such obvious falsehoods that he can only be deranged or some sort of Judas goat. But no one demonstrates his errors, I doubt that he is making any.” My refusal to waste time debating those who hold that the moon is made of blue cheese should not be construed as an avowal that I have no counter arguments. It’s just that life is too short to reply to an avalanche of obvious lunacy. Jew Richards is either a lunatic or there’s something more sinister at work, as I suspect. 86
Posted by DP on February 02, 2012, 04:36 PM | # Anyone using the term “conspiracy theorist” in the pejorative is one of: dishonest (trying to close down argument); affecting stupidity (apparently does not understand English); suffering an extreme lack of imagination (does not question what they’re told). A conspiracy in the sense discussed here is nothing more a crime planned by more than one person. A theory is nothing more than an idea about the crime. The official narrative of “9/11” (I dislike using that trigger term) is a conspiracy theory. It is the “official” conspiracy theory. The meaning of the term “conspiracy theory” has changed. It no longer means “an idea about a crime planned by more than one person”. It means “an idea you should not consider”. It is a Pavlovian trigger for “don’t go there”. Comparing analysis of political events to the scientific method is absurd. We have no first hand “evidence” of what Breivik did, nor of what happened when the WTC was attacked. We cannot experiment. A particular political event or situation is not repeatable. All we know is what the magic box and lie sheets tell us. All we can do is consider what we are told, and crucially, who is telling us, and form an opinion based in part on what we think we already know. It is, it must be, partly instinctive. Regarding the topic of this thread, what matters about (the entity known as) Breivik is the result of his actions - did it advance the cause of racial nationalism in Norway and elsewhere? This is not only what matters, but alongside other factors might be considered “evidence” of who and why. 87
Posted by Jovlang on February 02, 2012, 05:04 PM | # Murray Rothbard once said: «It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any outcropping of what is now called ‘a conspiracy theory of history.’ For a search for ‘conspiracies,’ as misguided as the results often are, means a search for motives, and an attribution of individual responsibility for the historical misdeeds of ruling elites. If, however, any tyranny or venality, or aggressive war imposed by the State was brought about not by particular State rulers but by mysterious and arcane ‘social forces,’ or by the imperfect state of the world—or if, in some way, everyone was guilty—then there is no point in anyone’s becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, a discrediting of ‘conspiracy theories’ will make the subjects more likely to believe the ‘general welfare’ reasons that are invariably put forth by the modern State for engaging in aggressive actions.”» “State” can be substituted for “Jewry”. 88
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 02, 2012, 07:14 PM | # @DP “Comparing analysis of political events to the scientific method is absurd. We have no first hand “evidence” of what Breivik did, nor of what happened when the WTC was attacked. We cannot experiment. A particular political event or situation is not repeatable.” OK that is better. But there a couple of issues; if we do not have access to direct evidence how can we form any firm opinion on such matters? Our only response would be a blank agnosticism, yes? As for the uniqueness/repeatability of human events, hence our inability to test hypotheses about them, I’m not so sure. After all I find Jewish claims regarding the radical uniqueness (in a strong sense of that term) of their treatment under the Nazi regime, to be empirically false (not because Jewry did not suffer but rather that organised barbarity is sadly a widespread human habit) and morally outrageous (Jews are not the only people to have suffered within history or even the 20th century on a large scale). The ‘competitive suffering’ game is grotesque. Let’s take another, less controversial example; the IRA and ETA and their political and para-military campaigns. In some features and many details they are different but in some ways they are similar hence comparable phenomena. So their campaigns are weakly unique historical events or rather only partially differentiated ones. After all if someone was exposed to a totally unique event – such as seeing a colour that no-one else had ever experienced it would be a bewildering and inexplicable event – but even in that example I use concepts we are familiar with - ‘seeing’, ‘colour’ etc. Its difficult to say what would be genuinely ‘strongly unique’. Directly experiencing Minkowskian space-time? I don’t know? Discussion of the ineffable is tricky – to quote T.S. Eliot - “His ineffable effable / Effanineffable / Deep and inscrutable singular Name”. So anyway back to history and political analysis – of course historians (as an ensemble) test different hypotheses or explanations for events. Historian A claims war B was primarily caused by factor C whilst Historian X claims war B was primarily caused by factor Z. There is a back and forth, people look for coherence, explanatory power (has someone left out significant or relevant evidence?) and so on. Perhaps some sort of consensus might emerge but history is very messy and complex (in comparison to a simple and tightly controlled scientific experiment) so there is always scope for legitimate, rationally grounded, differences in interpretation and so on. However, what is wrong about a conspiratorial approach is that there is only one possible answer allowed and whatever absurd manoeuvring is required to maintain the cherished hypothesis/causal explanation will be shamelessly performed. Then we are in the territory of irrational monomania. It’s OK to be sceptical of much of the mass media etc., but being open to other possible interpretations, ideas, suggestions should not result in our heads being so open to such that our brains slip out. But yes you are right in that the precise events of, say 9/11, will not be repeated, but that doesn’t mean they are incomprehensible to us. 89
Posted by J Richards on February 03, 2012, 12:37 AM | # Zalmoxis @56
What the hell is this? If the pictures are extensively edited, is the correct question “is there evidence that the face has been altered?” or is it “is this person real?” given other circumstances concerning this person? Where are the older pictures of Breivik? Are any in a group settings so that the other people can be traced and one can assess whether this Breivik individual exists? We don’t know for a fact that they have someone in custody and that the mug shot of this person is of an actual person. Now before you go into a digression of how one knows whether a random criminal said to be in a jail is an actual person in the jail, notice that in the typical case we have no reasons to question authority. Here we do because the mental illnesses this person is supposed to suffer from couldn’t possibly be true based on a plain reading of his manifesto, and we’re dealing with a profound event, not an ordinary crime. Your excerpt from MacDonald argues the same point, and if you don’t believe me, perhaps you’ll believe MacDonald because he’s a psychologist, or pick up a basic text in psychiatry and evaluate for yourself. Somebody doesn’t want this person brought to trial, and when I pointed this out, I didn’t mention that this person may not exist. But now that they come up with the B.S. on building a one-man hospital for him, in light of other things, one has to wonder whether this person exists. Your excerpt allegedly proving MacDonald praising Breivik is a twisted interpretation. Even I have described the entity that wrote the manifesto as highly intelligent [ http://majorityrights.com/norwegian.massacre#manifesto ], but is this praise or is it a matter-of-fact assessment of the mental capability of the entity that came up with the manifesto? I have nothing but contempt for this entity, and MacDonald is hardly different. Whereas you say that MacDonald didn’t address the fact that the dead include anti-Zionist protestors, he’s written or said much more on the topic (I haven’t read it all), and he clearly stated that he doesn’t buy the fact that the author of the manifesto, who abruptly stops tracing the origin of political correctness to the Frankfurt School, isn’t aware that this school was purely kosher. MacDonald knows that something’s not right, but he’s not free like me to be more open about it.
Is it really hard to chalk up all the praise to phony opposition? What if I had a rule that people commenting on the post must be on topic and discuss the facts pointed out [on the web pages linked to in the body of the post in this case]? The Jew-wailing chorus above would be absent and there’d be very few comments. This is how bad it is at MR, a heavily infiltrated website. What about the masses of websites in its genre set up, from day 1, in bad faith? Do some reading about the online activities of the hasbarim. I can’t recall a single pretend-nationalist or pretend-patriot who explicitly or tacitly praised Breivik and has left a trail of postings which altogether suggest that he’s genuine but misguided on the Norwegian event. zalmoxis @57 The point of the excerpt was to show that your allegation of the Norwegians losing it to WWII events is false as they lost it at least more than a decade earlier. 90
Posted by J Richards on February 03, 2012, 01:08 AM | # Lew @70
When I discussed the reasons why I think Ron Paul is controlled opposition, you didn’t comment: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/ron_paul_controlled_opposition_best_for_president Unless you comment on this post (at the link, not below) and raise valid objections, you can’t describe the notion as implausible. In the case of Romney and Gingrich, no one pretends that they’re opposition, but some maintain that Paul is, which can be addressed, and I did. The point of my post wasn’t “don’t vote for him.” I said I’d rather have Paul as President because he’d enlighten more people than others when the things that matter either don’t change or change for the worse and people realize what elections mean. 91
Posted by zalmoxis on February 03, 2012, 05:17 PM | #
There are a number of plausible reasons why someone might want to remove the background from a picture. Maybe just to conceal evidence of where it was taken. It doesn’t really indicate that the face has been altered or that the person isn’t real.
I was mainly thinking of the pics here, and also the one here. There’s also one of him in a courtroom here. There are more if you just do an image search. He’s also got a posting history going back to 2008 if I’m not mistaken on some neocon sites, and various people (Greg Johnson and some others) have said that he added them on Facebook at some point. Then there are accounts of people saying that they knew the guy. To me it looks like a real person. Either that or you’ve got a lot of fake pics, a lot of people intimidated into lying or shutting up, and effort directed over a considerable period of time (at least a few years) into building up a fake identity for Breivik. It’s not impossible but it’s more likely to me that it’s a real person.
It’s abundantly clear that MacDonald saw no problem at all with Breivik’s selection of targets. I don’t see why he would be less free than you are to say “gee, maybe killing White people who are protesting against Israel isn’t the best way to advance our cause”. This is obvious and was widely commented upon by non-WN observers.
I’m not disputing that Breivik clearly didn’t act alone, or that much of what we know about Breivik is likely false, etc. To me he’s essentially a patsy, probably a willing patsy, and the “one-man mental hospital” is just a way of giving him a slap on the wrist (in all likelihood he will likely not be in the mental hospital at all, but on an island somewhere).
Well, honestly it’d be easier to count the people who didn’t praise Breivik. I read a lot of commentary on this when it happened, and I can think of David Duke, Varg Vikernes, and maybe a handful of bloggers, though honestly not many, among WNs. In order for you to be correct, we need over 50% of online WNs to be hasbara, which is hard even for me to believe. I think you are right that there’s a lot of consciously phony opposition (Jews and mischlings pretending to be Whites), but there’s also a sort of “natural phony opposition” so to speak, made up of people who identify with Jews for various psychological reasons (largely just a submission to power) and they like seeing the enemies of the Jews (whether “Nazi”, “leftist”, or Muslim) get killed. That describes Christian Zionists obviously, and I think it also describes a lot of “White nationalists” as well. It probably at least partially accounts for Breivik himself.
Well, I still don’t get it. The Norwegians had a nationalist, pro-Nazi government during WWII. Unless you’re disputing that, then my point is made about Norwegians losing their nationalist government due to external causes (American military force). Whether their system was ideal from other points of view is a different matter. 92
Posted by Bill on February 04, 2012, 05:36 AM | # It is interesting that David Icke’s name has cropped up here at MR, if anyone had told me that Icke’s name would have featured her I’d have been gobsmacked. Yet here we are, Icke is here, in this very thread, well waddya know? who’d a thunked it? David Icke is Rev. Harry’s territory really, but I’ve been interested in Icke for sometime now, and like everything else on the Internet when one begins to peel the onion you don’t know where your going to end up, and Icke is no exception. Icke represents the Truth Movement and there is an absolute plethora of like minded web sites spread across the ‘net. The tin foil hat exponents of conspiracy sites are mocked mercilessly by anyone who wishes to prove that their opponent is insane. I’ve been taking an interest in something called the New Age of Aquarius which I remember from the ‘80’s(?) I even remember a stage show by that name in London. From what I remember from that time it was of little interest to me. Not so these days, the New Age of Aquarius is kindling much interest. Occasional contributor here Revolution Harry is interested in the spiritual enterprise of the NWO, in fact Harry has a hunch the spiritual aspect of the NWO is so closely entwined with the political/social NWO as to be of one, if not more. I’m gradually, albeit reluctantly, gravitating to a similar outlook. At first I poo-pood the idea, but my peeling of the union since starting my quest here at MR has led me to people like David Icke. This bumping into David Icke and his like whilst on my quest for answers has occurred far too may times to be of coincidence. I’ve just come away from GoV website and something on the comment section there pinged my radar and prompted me to post this comment. I am deliberately side stepping the obvious ‘iffy’ issues surrounding David Icke and the Truth Movement simply because I don’t know, how can anybody know whether people are genuine or controlled or whatever. Being a gazillion miles from the source all we can do is parrot what we read here and elsewhere on the Internet. We sift what we read through our personal credibility filters and store away for future reference. What am I saying Here? I’m saying there are too many instances where I have come across information that at first one cannot connect any dots, only to find that later they do, maybe not immediately, sometimes it’s pure random searching that turns up something ‘pings’ and you cannot simply ignore. If you do, it’s at your peril. 93
Posted by Hymen on February 04, 2012, 11:39 AM | # speaking from here inside the Hebrewbox, to me it looks like all the Jews who have enough balls to do 18 months of Advanced Infantry training before doing 18 more months of actual checkpoint duty in Judea & Samaria, are NOT the ones living in the USA. The guy who seems to actually comprehend the physical anthropology of the WN’s dilemma is this retired (non-Hebrew) mathematician: www. erectuswalksamongst.us By the way, where do I sign up for all these Hebrew financial benefits? I can barely afford to live here in Afula, a nice provincial city comprised mostly of descendants of Hebrew refugees from Arab countries who got kicked out of them in 1948. 94
Posted by Hymen on February 04, 2012, 11:45 AM | # forgot to mention. To me it looks like Breivik changed his appearance when he got a square-jaw implant, which is actually a popular procedure in Southern California. Google on the two major manufacturers of the silicone implants: Implantech & AART
95
Posted by Graham_Lister on February 04, 2012, 03:35 PM | # Bill said: “Icke represents the Truth Movement” Case closed m’lord. Is Icke still the ‘son of God’ as he announced he was on the “Wogan” show in the early 90s? Let’s make the Icke meta-induction: he was wrong yesterday, he is wrong today and so he will be wrong tomorrow (ad infinitum). 97
Posted by Bill on February 06, 2012, 04:53 PM | # One of my regular ports of call is the Daily Bell blog. Usually, on a Monday, (Which today is) it is quieter than later days in the week, but I was interested to see they have an interesting interview on offer, none other than Mr David Icke whose name it has been noticed has appeared here (in this thread at MR.) I’ve been reasonably familiar with Icke’s works for several years now, but was somewhat taken aback when someone on one of these threads said he’d only just heard of him. Well for those here who haven’t heard of David Icke, or for those have heard his name but no little or nothing about him, then I offer for your delectation Mr David Icke. http://www.thedailybell.com/3578/Staff-Report-David-Icke-on I issue the usual caveat when talking Icke, the jury is out about the usual claims about him, all I ask is, does David Icke aid or hinder the nationalist cause? It is a fairly lengthy piece so be prepared to put a few minutes aside. 98
Posted by attackonthelaborparty blog on February 12, 2012, 01:45 AM | # You might be interested in some of the latest news surrounding the case: Norwegian Justice Department blocks Breivik interview with BBC Next entry: Bankers Making Apple Run Sweatshops in China Previous entry: The piracy of digital copyrighted content: SOPA, PIPA, etc. |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. angemsRag commented in entry 'The Jewish decade in post-war Poland' on 05/23/12, 02:27 AM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/23/12, 01:38 AM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio Guest Spot' on 05/23/12, 12:43 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Europe 2015' on 05/23/12, 12:28 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Precious Williams' on 05/23/12, 12:22 AM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'The Bear’s Lair: The immortal Smoot' on 05/22/12, 11:53 PM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) Luxury British Watches commented in entry 'Fair shares all round it is, then' on 05/22/12, 11:22 PM. (go) (view) Lise27 commented in entry 'A reply to Happy Cracker' on 05/22/12, 11:14 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) seite commented in entry 'Fair shares all round it is, then' on 05/22/12, 09:26 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/22/12, 09:09 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Elubbibbott commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/22/12, 08:14 PM. (go) (view) CHENALEXANDRIA33 commented in entry 'The Mysterious Influence on the US of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus' on 05/22/12, 07:56 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/22/12, 07:09 PM. (go) (view) QuottevoM commented in entry 'This thread business' on 05/22/12, 07:07 PM. (go) (view) Aborhoorstusa commented in entry 'Ladies against feminism' on 05/22/12, 06:53 PM. (go) (view) Sarws23ls commented in entry 'Thread Wars' on 05/22/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) rmmshzrbpvi commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/22/12, 05:37 PM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 05:18 PM. (go) (view) ovephorie commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/22/12, 05:14 PM. (go) (view) Glurarieepife commented in entry 'Charlene Downes - a murder too far for the MSM' on 05/22/12, 04:56 PM. (go) (view) rarlencourl commented in entry 'Jews: jewish hand-wringing at recent high' on 05/22/12, 04:23 PM. (go) (view) Lifsappoift commented in entry 'Those nasty Christian concentration camps' on 05/22/12, 03:16 PM. (go) (view) winstrol commented in entry 'Was Churchill an antisemite and a Fascist?' on 05/22/12, 02:47 PM. (go) (view) DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/22/12, 12:58 PM. (go) (view) Judy20James commented in entry 'Hurricane can-do in Cancun' on 05/22/12, 12:49 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Au Contraire on January 26, 2012, 04:35 PM | #
Yes it must have been the all-knowing and all-powerful Illuminati and their avatars the J-lizards! No other explanation possible. They control the horizontal, they control the vertical…
Against the grain of such dystopic claims can I make an earnest plea to GW – the joke has go too far!
Can’t we have the sensible people back in charge? Nonsense can only be entertaining in short bursts. The David Icke forums might be a better places for certain characters to exercise their desire to explain their all-encompassing conspiracy theories.