Free speech and open discussion issues

Posted by Robert Reis on February 09, 2012, 04:07 AM | #

I have noticed more and more comment thread being led astray into weird directions that degenerate into unreadable bunkum. Some people like to sabotage this site. Perhaps noting how many times a poster ignores a reasonable request for clarification or for a defense of his position, but instead degenerates into name-calling etc should be the standard.

Posted by Helvena on February 09, 2012, 08:04 AM | #

A perfectly reasonable request.  I suspect people like Soren, Uh, Lister are in the Guillaume Faye camp and I don’t doubt for a minute that they are sincere but I also not doubt for a minute that they are wrong.  They do not debate with good faith, they instead make personal attacks, create straw men and overall noise.  If this is truly a site where debate is welcome then enforce policies where debate (and learning) can take place otherwise people will assume it is just a honey pot.  I am certainly on the verge of taking that position.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 09, 2012, 08:05 AM | #

This post has been prompted by issues arising from my trashing an individual that has engaged, for a long time, in multiple foul behaviors intended to undermine reasonable discussion. One of these was relentless promotion of the Austrian School, which suggested an opportunity to get rid of this individual without losing much credibility. At first I had some requests that went unheeded, then I followed with multiple warnings, which turned into a final warning, which was violated multiple times. So I waited to post on a book that destroys a fundamental premise of the Austrian School, and finally challenged this individual to defend the Austrian School by reading, summarizing and critiquing this book, and coming up with justification for the other fundamental premise of the Austrian School, or admit to what he’s been doing, failing which he can no longer comment here as before. Predictably, this individual has attempted to move Heaven and Earth to get back to commenting here regularly, continued to post comments, but not made an admission or indicated that he’s working on providing me the essays I need. (JRichards)

I am the person in question. My only response is this: I never saw Richards’s overbearing “ultimatum”. I never even read the Kitson post; in fact, I still haven’t, and I won’t be doing so at least until Friday (I really do have a full slew of grad classes, people, not to mention other pressures and tasks). When I might have time for the 10-15000 word (!) summary and refutation, I really couldn’t say. I will comment on the Kitson thread before the end of the week, however.

The rest of this allegation about my “foul behaviors” is utter rubbish. I mean, just plain factually unfair. Yes, I promote the Austrian School; JR right here again promotes “trutherism”. So what? I promote the Austrians because, in my not ill-educated or ignorant estimation (which includes an undergrad economics major at one of the Ivies, as well as attendance at the 10-day summer “Mises University”, and multiple Austrian conferences and seminars - and, additionally, much post-college reading in Austrianism), they are correct - especially wrt money and banking issues (we can and should ignore their constant and faulty eliding of the distinction between value-free economics and libertarian political advocacy - a fault much in evidence here, too). I would never have broached Austrianism if MR had ‘religiously’ restricted itself to racialist topics. But if someone is going to bring in irrelevant (and mistaken) material on, say, genetics, then it is to be expected that a scientist here working in that or perhaps an allied field will feel it incumbent to correct the errors. Doing so would not constitute a “conspiracy” to derail the discussion. 

[Note the supreme irony in all this is, as either GType or XPWA recently noted, Richards and I are actually much closer in economic ideology to each other than either of us is to almost any other regular contributor. Think about who has been involved with economic discussions. In addition to Haller the Austrian and Richards the “debt-free money” man, we have uh the Marxist, danielj the fascist, Silver the Keynesian, Lister the ethnocommunitarian social democrat, Liberal Heresy the Social Creditist, XPWA/GT the micro-community physical economyites, Renner the ecological anarchist, GW the genteel rural anti-The City-ite, Helvena the Harridan ... Richards and I are perhaps the most free-market oriented persons at MR.] 

Furthermore, I am one of the most relentlessly ‘on-topic’ and all-round earnest and intellectually committed persons participating at MR. I never link to pop culture, weird videos, and general irrelevancies. I make the effort to write cogently (FYI to many: ‘cogency’ does not refer to length), and mostly to write grammatically. My lengthy comments, of which there have been relatively few since my return to school in September, were always among the most serious of any on offer. Disbelieve me? Just go scrolling through back threads in 2009-11.

Richards does not like me because the Money/Jew relation is all-important to him - one might say, the foundational issues informing his defense of white civilization - whereas for me, that emphasis is profoundly misconceived. For Richards, it would appear that the crisis of Europa is essentially sociological and financial. He has identified a culprit (Jewry) behind our EGI decline, and a mechanism (control of money supply).

I, on the other hand, freely acknowledge, and always have, that Jewry has been a liberalizing or cosmopolitanizing force in post-Emancipation white nations. I also acknowledge their enormous communal wealth, and heavily disproportionate influence in several of the major white nations, beginning with the US.

But I do not believe that Jewry is even a necessary, let alone sufficient, explanation for the collapse of Western confidence. The historical process by which the West has racially declined has many causal aspects to it; disentangling those causes is hardly a simple task. What seems obvious to me is that Jewry and its liberalism-promotion is but one element in the equation, and not the most important one. I grew up in Southern CA; there was no dearth of Jews in my childhood, including parental friends, neighbors, and classmates. And yet, I reasoned my way to a racial conservatism in the 80s - that is, long before the internet-led contemporary explosion of WN consciousness. Older members can attest to the desert of materials for racial understanding that existed pre-net.

The notion that all would be well in whiteyland sans Jewry just strikes me as too limited and naive to warrant much comment. Empirical investigation backs me up. Even in countries with very little Jewish connection or history of subversion, similar race-liberal or tolerance memes seem to have cropped up. Why has Ireland let in so many nonwhite immigrants? How many Jews has it had in recent decades, and what concrete positions of influence have they occupied, such as to be able to inculcate such deracination as to have seen the rise of Irish anti-racists in response to even the most tepid objections to the importation of racial aliens?

My point, hardly unique to me (in fact, recognized by many WNs of various tendencies), is that there is something about whites (and to an intensifying extent with the “whitest whites”) which makes (or has made) them uniquely susceptible to universalist or diversitarian propaganda. I think the conventional explanation is largely correct: whites are genetically more individualistic than other races, as well as more collectively innately ethical, and this biological condition, combined with a particular set of postwar circumstances (which I do not care right now to attempt exhaustively to list - others, feel free), led to a profound transformation in the modal white understanding of what can be called the “ethics of race”. Jews played a role in undermining white racial pride, both as liberal theoreticians (eg, Frankfurt School), as well as disproportionate owners of the means of communication/propaganda. But the counternotion that, but for the Jews, eg, white Britons would be just as racist today as during the Victorian era, just isn’t plausible.

I don’t have a fully developed theory of How the West Became Liberal - and anyway, my own academic interest is in combatting the ethical underpinnings of this new philosophical condition. Again, this is for the simple and even conventional reason that I think ethical misunderstandings about the moral acceptability of white collective identity politics and policies to ensure or realize the 14 Words are at the root of WN failure. Basically, until there is a sea change in Western morality back to the old consensus re the proper relation between white and Other - which in turn will not happen until the new racial morality is thoroughly ethically debunked, with that debunking then widely publicized (eg, one strand of which can be seen in the mantra “anti-racist = anti-white”) - I don’t think WN is going to go anywhere beyond the occasional local victory. Certainly, we won’t be taking the offensive, which we must, as nearly every exogenous, impersonal, undirected factor (again, others feel free to list them), quite apart from any hypothesized specific conspiracies, is militating against Occidental survival.

I could say a lot more, of course. I’m interested in the full spectrum of issues impacting white preservation, from the ethics of racialism and the science and ontology of racial differences, to the proper methods of white advocacy and organization of WN political efforts. Apart from my 15k word assignment, what I really ought to do is a Where I Stand post, just so people stop falsely attributing to me views not my own.

Finally, for the record, I’m a German (+mixed Euro) Catholic American. I AM NOT A JEW.

Coda:

Re the “two factions” referenced above: apart from the lunacy of asserting that his is the serious group, Herr Richards should not be so certain that his faction could withstand any serious comparison with the anti-Richards group. As I see it, they sort of divide as follows: 

Richardsmenschen:  Richards, dc, Ivan, Helvena, Jimmy Marr, GenoType, XPWA, CaptainChaos, and some newer types

zurechnungsfahigmenschen: Haller, Lister, uh, Silver, Dasein, Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, Renner

(apologies for any omissions)

On the summit of Olympus, towering above the fray, is, of course, Zeus/GW.

Whatever one thinks of the second group in terms of intellectual capacity, words which come to mind for the first are “crotchety”, “peevish”, “unpleasant”, “deranged”, “paranoid”, “tin-foil”, etc. I’m sorry Jimmy and the Capn have aligned themselves with blusterers, paranoiacs, and Muslims, but clearly the intelligence, openmindedness, and intellectual joie de vivre is mostly on one side of this ledger.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 08:10 AM | #

“unreadable bunkum”

is understood/translated to - moderately sophisticated/nuanced language which intimidates, middle-brow culturally and intellectually improvised, middle-Americans.

As for ‘disproving’ a conspiracy theory – well I did explain why that is almost impossible as the conspiracy-minded tend to set their story up to be, in practice, unfalsifiable (too big a word for you?) and are untrustworthy as to how they use evidence and untrustworthy in the prism which they to use view the world – so they fail both analytically and emotionally to be reasonably-minded normal people.

Seriously look at the most famous contemporary ‘conspiracy’ fruit-cake – one David Icke – he predicts the Earth will stop rotating for three days in 2012 – when it doesn’t do you think he or his true-believers will give-up or announce and reflect how stupid and wrong Icke is on that and everything else? No of course not - they will rationalise the failure away as really a ‘counter-factual’ success - the incident goes down the ‘memory-hole’ and the whole sorry charade carries on. I outlined the mechanisms for such a procedure in other posts.

Anyone that lives the life of the mind in any semi-serious way can see all of those deformities with the conspiracy-minded world-view. Anyone that is emotionally well-balanced can sense the unhealthy psychodrama that generally ‘fuels’ such efforts. So again attempting to disprove such ideas is like attempting to nail jelly to the wall – a thankless and pointless waste of time.

Let me illustrate, I am not a civil or structural engineer not an architect, nor an explosives expert. Do you realise just how much time and effort it would take to gain enough real knowledge to have a valid and robust basis for an genuinely independent assessment of the technical issues concerning 9/11?

I do not mean reading half-baked accounts on the internet for which the person reading has no technical basis to accept or reject as they are ignorant of the topics concerned. In that case it does come down to a judgement call as to trustworthiness – of temperament, outlook, general framework, methods of using evidence, how the hypotheses are constructed etc., a whole ensemble of concerns and generic conspiracy-talk fails those tests.

OK so let’s say I did get up to speed and disputed an account of 911 – the evidence would not seriously discussed it would be ignored with crap like - “well he’s secretly a J-lizard out to disrupt things” etc., So the conspiracy-minded demand with fury that every possible ‘fact’ on their side is discussed until the cows come home yet tend to ignore and dismiss all too lightly and with an unfounded insouciance contradictory evidence and interpretations – thus we have the asymmetrical use of evidence as a methodology and confirmation bias. Anything that can be horseshoed into the conspiracy is, anything that cannot is ignored and goes down the memory-hole in an open-ended process.

What people of such an outlook and temper do is mistake what rational scepticism looks like and embrace a toxic version of it by becoming their own ‘master of suspicion’ ending in a delusion, narcissistic, radically solipsistic pseudo-gnosticism in which they and their minuscule circle alone discern ‘the secret truth’. But oddly that scepticism or suspicion is never turned towards themselves.

Now over a few posts I have repeatedly attempts to explain this all very coolly and rationally and when that does not have an impact (I’m ‘evil’ etc.) yes I do go into ‘taking the piss’ mode. If you don’t want to be ridiculed don’t believe or act in ridiculous ways.

So that is all I have to say. I will not get back the ten minutes or so it took to write this comment, yet again on this foolish nonsense, so enjoy your seminar on advance topics arising from the Icke-Richards conjecture and I hope you leader has fulfilled his responsibility in the aluminium-foil department.

The grown-ups tried to have sensible conversation with your ‘tendency’ but the children aren’t capable of entering into it. The whole ‘noise’ thing – good grief if someone has a different take on a topic then they are noise to be eliminated – typical of the genre using scientific terms in a pseudo-scientific rationalisation for why discussion really is another term for echo-chamber or a closed epistemic community -i.e. deluded nutters talking amongst themselves all in agreement as to how clever and insightful they are and being upset when the grown-ups point out some of their unreliable habits and procedures. Can you not see how pitiful, whiny and ‘special-pleading’ that is?

Richards with each move you simply confirm what I, uh, Leon, Renner (I suspect) and many others think. Go and see a therapist – seriously I’m not joking you need help.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2012, 08:37 AM | #

With this, J Richards has made an important contribution toards stimulation a long-overdue discussion on the role and purpose of MR. It remains to be seen whether or not GW will grasp the nettle.

It’s clear that there are two major, opposed factions at MR

PS I place myself in the ‘noisy’ camp.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 09:00 AM | #

Dan of course your are correct - the subject does need to be discussed. Is this place only an echo-chamber?

As Leon points out the ‘non-hat wearing’ group have many, many differences - oddly heterogeneous for a faction. What I suspect we do share is most of the IQ and education, enjoy an approximately normal emotional state, and have respect for judgmental rationality.

Sorry for the couple of typos in my previous comment - I think I might have an undiagnosed case of very mild dyslexia, or suffer from the wonderful effects of British state education, or type far too quickly - perhaps even all three! Whatever at least I don’t wear funny hats, which is a far more debilitating condition.

Posted by Bill on February 09, 2012, 10:05 AM | #

Musings of an MR blogger.
                     
This to me really is an intriguing discussion, and I suspect, not for the same reasons most commenter’s here think.

Since JR’s (is this his second coming?)  A hornet’s nest has been well and truly poked.  It must be said that prior to his latest appearance, (JR is previously unknown to me) MR was drifting rudderless, GW’s prolonged absences and peeling feature comment, was obvious to all.  But I’m not going to ask how this state of affairs came about.

I think I’m in a minority of one here, in fact I know I am.  When I set out I couldn’t find a website that suited me, then one day, armed with a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle I’d collected, I alighted here at MR.

It all seems such a long time ago now.

What has struck me over the years, is the mix of commenter origin that take part here, although MR is an English owned website, most comments come from without across the pond or elsewhere, it’s always puzzled me.

Most of what goes on here goes way over my head and by rights I suppose I shouldn’t be here, in fact Mr Renner suggested at one time I might be better suited elsewhere.  Perhaps I should say, that on reflection, he was a tad justified in doing so, as I had mildly criticised Jonathan Bowden in one of his speeches.

Since the early days, there’s been a prolific increase in nationalist sites throughout the blogosphere, though I find it interesting that nationalism (it seems) has morphed, overtime, into specific white interest.  (I remember when I advocated a new name for a political party as the White Survival Party.

There were no takers.

MR is a site for intellectuals.  I’d never encountered the world of the intellectual before, (that must tell me something) there’s some real smart cookies pass through these portals, but can they change a light bulb I ask?  What a weird bunch they are.  It’s their egos, I often get the feeling they couldn’t give a monkey’s about anything here other than point scoring and ‘touché’ faux duelling.

I didn’t get this scar for nothing you know!

Perhaps James Bowery is right, His/the story has been told and has reached its glass ceiling, what is there left to discuss, it’s 1938 and the seating arrangements have been made.

But astonishingly, most of mankind is shamelessly unaware of where history is taking them, how many tens of millions are blindly going about their business without as much as a hint as to what is going on around them?  Isn’t this where MR and such places come into their own?  To sound the alarm, to point out to the people and scream - Behind You!

Many here will say no, that’s not our job, others are doing that, our job is to figure out a means of preventing it happening.  That’s why we need the best brains.  I say it could be or should be both.

Do I hear the cry; ‘It can’t be both as that would ruin the game’?

Most folk in the world prefer the instructions to the accompanying flat-pack to be printed in a language they can understand.

There must be thousands who pass this way holding pieces of a jigsaw that they intuitively suspect belong to a much bigger picture, they scan the comments and sense that buried somewhere under the mumbo jumbo of intellectual sophistry lie buried other pieces of the jigsaw.  They also know only too well that they do not possess the wherewithal to dig them out.  So they leave, scratching their head, never to be seen again.

How is it such people as Trainspotter, Wondrin, Matt Parrot, Greg Johnson and others, can convey their meanings without recourse to intellectualising.

Is MR punching its weight?  I ask myself.

How can we tell?  How would we measure?  If what I surmise is true and only small fractions of the public are aware of their plight, then it is obvious that the Internet on its own is not cutting the mustard.

But as we all know, there is another side to this question.  The MSM and all that.

Why do I stick around when all I do is aggravate the RSI in my scrolling finger, and get a headache to boot?

Hmm!  That’s a good question.

I suppose it’s because I think of myself as being an ordinary sort of a chap, just ambling along in life with one eye on the glass and the sifting sand.  For some reason, I know not why, I’ve cottoned on to what is happening, (or I think I have.)  I cannot help but ask, Why me? when others around are still watching Dorothy and Toto wend their way along the yellow brick road?

It takes me an age to compose and edit a simple comment, and when I click submit, the last thing I see is an unforced error disappear into the screen.  Damn!

My vocabulary has extended no end; trouble is I can’t remember what I looked up only yesterday.

I’m hopeless at this troll business; I find in the end, I trust no-one.  Posting obscurating gobbledygook is a sure way of tanking down an unwelcome comment into the long grass.  Good scam that!  Wish I’d thought of it.  Eh, hang on, perhaps I already have.

Good stuff this freedom of speech.

Posted by Michael on February 09, 2012, 10:46 AM | #

Load of bollocks in the comments section. I’ve come to appreciate the term ‘echo-chamber’. Who cares, how much stuff you have to do besides posting novels under any blog entry? Who wants to read your endless cross-references of things you said about and to each other.

Read the blog entry, extract the thesis, discuss the hard facts and arguments, draw conclusions. Or gtfo. Never read a racist blog, which was all about cold analysis, consensus building (Lol, the internet doesn’t really encourage automatic hierarchical structuring of groups of humans, which would get those groups somewhere. It has to happen in real life.), planning and implementation. It’s all just chit-chat; racist silverbacks and wannabees stroking their egos, maintaining their ‘cred’.

Go ahead and ask me what the hell I’m doing here. I don’t know, I’m stuck too.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 09, 2012, 10:51 AM | #

Richardsmenschen:  Richards, dc, Ivan, Helvena, Jimmy Marr, GenoType, XPWA, CaptainChaos, and some newer types

zurechnungsfahigmenschen: Haller, Lister, uh, Silver, Dasein, Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, Renner

This grouping is funny as hell to me, but I noticed something strange when I tried to mentally rearrange it. Regardless of how the names are grouped, there are almost none with which I am not flattered to have mine associated.

Same goes for the names of the missing.

Posted by Ron Trisner on February 09, 2012, 11:10 AM | #

When a poster has spent 4 years on White Nationalist website using ad hominem and schoolyard tactics attacking anyone discussing the massive evidence for Israeli and Jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks (such as the three vans full of explosives pulled over, as mentioned on recently released NYPD tapes, one of them reported to have actually detonated, the “Dancing Israelis” etc.) it seems pretty damn clear there’s an agenda at work doesn’t it?

Not much different than the “White Nationalist” sites that demand extreme philo-semitism, or at the least, are anti-anti-semitic, such as the Auster types - it’s pretty obvious there’s another agenda isn’t it?

Silver is admittedly a half-jew isn’t he?

Some people expect us to play pretend about the obvious - it seems reasonable to speculate on the motivations.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2012, 11:18 AM | #

Dan,

The role of MR, currently, is twofold:

1. To provide a platform for capable people to go beyond the analysis of the crisis of European Man, which one encounters everywhere in the nationalist blogosphere, and to think creatively.

2. To provide an invigorating space in which already knowledgeable people can challenge themselves and others, and expand their understanding.

The present debate refers wholly to the second of these.  But there is an interesting feature to it which perhaps points to a maturation of the WN analysis.

The first time MR negotiated these rapids, the divide was characterised by the racially-aware, whether SJCers or not, producing their arguments and pulling at the more conventional and respectably conservative to wake up and cross over to their side.  The same insults flew, and many of the same passions were expressed.  But there was never any doubt as to where truth and right were abiding.

This time round, the picture is more mixed.  The divide has moved “rightward”, and the large preponderance of those on the left side are wholly awake, Jew-aware but also possessed of a nuanced historical, philosophical and political analysis (I am pretty sure, for instance, that Macdonald and Sunic would stand with them, were they in this debate).  The divide has redefined itself, or is in the process of doing so, around not only the JQ but intellectualism and complexity.  It is interesting.

Anyway, we have an urgent lesson to learn about mutual acceptance, that much is certain.  I have often cited the old socialist rule, “No enemy to the left.”  How useful something like that would be to us.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2012, 11:19 AM | #

This grouping is funny as hell to me, but I noticed something strange when I tried to mentally rearrange it. Regardless of how the names are grouped, there are almost none with which I am not flattered to have mine associated.

Perfect, Jimmy.

Posted by Thorn on February 09, 2012, 11:45 AM | #

Why do I stick around when all I do is aggravate the RSI in my scrolling finger, and get a headache to boot?

Hmm!  That’s a good question.

I suppose it’s because I think of myself as being an ordinary sort of a chap, just ambling along in life with one eye on the glass and the sifting sand.  For some reason, I know not why, I’ve cottoned on to what is happening, (or I think I have.)  I cannot help but ask, Why me? when others around are still watching Dorothy and Toto wend their way along the yellow brick road?

Bill, that is excellent! At times I wish I were born a delusional liberal thus I wouldn’t be burdened with or feel compelled to fight against a seemingly supernatural force/intelligence that is hellbent on genociding white people off the planet.

Why can’t I accept the silly notion that “race is but a social construt” and be done with it? Why I’m I so damned concerned about the white race when most of the white race bought into the “anti-racism” ideology?

Maybe it’s because I am convinced whites are vastly superior to all other races in all manners of comparison. If I didn’t beleive whites are superior to all other races, what’s the point of it all? If I thought we were inferior I’d want to breed with the superior races in order to improve my offspring. But we are not inferior, we are superior. There’s no doubt about it. Furthermore non-whites are jealous as hell of that superiority whilst white-liberals deny it or are ashamed of it.

At any rate, I’ll keep fighting the fight whilst scratching my head in a state of bewilderment brought on by the sheer moral contradictions as it relates to white racial preservation.

But hey, if esteemed men like Jared Taylor can’t figure it out, then I don’t feel too dim-witted.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2012, 11:54 AM | #

GW:

As far as I am able to discern, the present doctrinal faultline which divides ‘factions’ of contributors and commentators is concerned almost entirely with the matter of the salience of the JQ to our present predicament and future options. A subsidiary matter relates to the question of whether or not a discussion vehicle in which the JQ receives the prominence that it is taking here has any continuing relevance for Europeans. I think you will be aware of my position on both points so I won’t labour them again.

Intellectualism and complexity would seem to have little to do with it.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2012, 12:04 PM | #

Dan,

From the monocausal standpoint, the left bank is filled with pseudo-intellectuals complicating everything for egoistic purposes from morn til night.  But you know, don’t you, that “the only way out is through the Jew”?  Preferably, for many if not most, by using the German Heavy Model.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 12:16 PM | #

@Bill

Thanks for that thoughtful post. And your concerns are perfectly valid – what does all this stuff about ontology etc., amount to and what practical use is it?

No-one should be looked down on just because they do not have graduate degrees etc., equally nor should be unquestionably be due complete sycophancy because they own a copy of “Being and Time”. You’re right that intellectuals, or people that think they are, can often be ego-driven and very unpleasant people – academia is like a nest of vipers particularly at its elite levels. And a high IQ doesn’t automatically relate to, or confer, the many other virtues that contribute to what the ancient Greeks though of as human excellence.

I’d hate to think people would be intimidated by anyone else – in the spirit of Socratic dialogue it shouldn’t be a problem for anyone to ask “what did you mean by that?”, or, “can you explain that point in a different way?”

And the idea of judgemental rationality is only really a fancy term for our everyday, more or less, common sense reasoning. Put it this way – think of an everyday event – static electricity. So someone explains it in terms of normal physics etc., and someone tells you it all due to the ‘invisible bees’ stinging you and what’s more you have to prove to them, beyond doubt, that the ‘invisible bees’ do not exist.

Any reasonable person would say well the ‘invisible bee’ idea seems a bit daft and is so ‘out-there’ that is has to be considered, on the balance or probabilities, unlikely. And you might assume the person promoting the ‘invisible bee’ idea has some issues, especially if they display an very unusual level of enthusiasm for it and denounces everyone that even says “are you totally sure about that old chap?”

Then the regular people start discussion the relationship between rubbing a balloon on your head and static electricity and the ‘invisible bee’ people get very angry and shout “why aren’t you talking about the invisible bees – who must be deluded or in cahoots with those that wish to hide their existence”. Then the people accused response “no don’t be so silly” which only proves to the ‘invisible bee’ people how evil and dangerous the non-invisible bee people are. At some point these very different, incommensurate, approaches cannot both be held equally valid. One must choose which approach you trust more.

As for what MR is for – I guess it’s a meta-political site – as GW said for new ideas, approaches, suggestions etc., that add both scope and depth to the questions that concern us. It’s not the place for a kind of manic ‘boosterism’. Nor is it the place to work out what leaflet design or whatever is most effective for a council election. Those questions can be explored elsewhere – the internet is a big place after all.

By boosterism I mean the idea that every five seconds someone shouts “victory is ours” and everyone else agrees. People in the UK ‘Socialist Worker Party’ (SWP) do that all the time -  every five seconds they say “this time capitalism will finally collapse and the revolution is at hand”. To my mind such a habit displays a deeper worry that those people feel totally powerless and in the quite of their own minds think “nothing like that will ever happen” so they overcompensate and pretend to themselves and others that yes the revolution is just around the corner. Again because those people’s confidence in their world-view is very shaky they don’t like people questioning it, even if they are on the same side politically. Trotskyites (SWP types) are like this – they can start an argument and three different political parties in an empty room in under 30 minutes – it is not a good way to ‘do’ politics.

Bill no-one that is genuinely concerned for the future well-being of their society should feel like they ‘don’t belong’ here – in fact quite the opposite.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 12:44 PM | #

typo - quiet of their own minds etc.

I disagree that this is primarily a dispute about the JQ or related issues - it really is about trust, soundness of thinking, judgmental rationality etc., which has the taken form around the J word.

Honestly, I’m not insulting Richards for the sake of it when I suggest he is MR’s functional equivalent to someone like David Icke - it is not a compliment. Richards and his followers seem to have an almost theological-style commitment to their single cause diagnostic - a missionary type ideology. I do think it’s ultimately toxic to serious insight and very much acts as a miasma.

Posted by Helvena on February 09, 2012, 01:27 PM | #

Bill I am on the same quest as you, I started about five years ago.  At one time, especially in college, I was very pro-Jewish.  It wasn’t until I read about their treatment of the Palestinian in the Christian Science Monitor coupled with their relentless evil German Nazi meme that I decided things didn’t add up and started to investigate.  One site that is very comprehensive on the Israeli/American connection is:  http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/  Now this guy has a tremendous knowledge of Jewish/Judaism/Israeli issues.  He’s also very good on Islam but he can’t stand WN, he thinks we are all just stooges of right wing corporate capitalism (heavy on the Jewish flavoring)  if you ask him anything don’t mention that you visit here.  He’s British.  Those Brits are fantastic when they are really interested in something.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2012, 02:12 PM | #

I have tried to engage this individual who posts at niqnaq, in a serious conversation.  He was, for a time, a regular at Troy Southgate’s old NR forum.  He is, as you say, an intelligent and extremely well-read man.  But, alas, he is also a convert to Islam (as well as being slightly disabled, I believe, and never married).

He did not like the direction the conversation was taking when I challenged his moral order.  It very quickly transpired that he can’t process the notion of blood without the usual convulsions, and the conversation was terminated.

Posted by MOB on February 09, 2012, 02:17 PM | #

My thoughts, in order of importance:

1.  Leon Haller should be removed permanently.  He is a thousand pound weight that holds down whatever potential progress exists at this site.

2a. MR role: platform for knowledgeable, capable people to go beyond the analysis of the crisis of European Man to think creatively of doable collective activities that, if nothing else, will create a sense of shared mission and teamwork.

2b. ,,, to provide a separate space in which knowledgeable people can challenge themselves and expand their understanding to their hearts’ content.  : )

3.  ... insults flew and passions were expressed, but there was never any doubt as to where truth and right were abiding.
Nice try.  As my Jewish drama professor announced periodically, Truth is the power that governs.  I add “right” to that truism.

The preponderance of those on the left side, wholly awake, Jew-aware but also possessed of a nuanced historical, philosophical and political analysis, is redefining itself around not only the JQ but intellectualism and complexity.

Intellectualizing is a time-honored device whereby confronting a problem can be postponed indefinitely.  What’s happened is that tolerance and accommodation have been employed for the purpose of increasing the size of “the elite.” 

Anyway, we have an urgent lesson to learn about mutual acceptance, that much is certain.  I have often cited the old socialist rule, “No enemy to the left.”  How useful something like that would be to us.

Yes, given enough redefining, intellectualism, and complexity, “mutual acceptance” should be a walk in the park.

4.  I hope Greg Johnson feels he’s been placed on the wrong team, even though the placing was done arbitrarily and the person doing the placing has no credibility.

Posted by Leon Needs a Haircut on February 09, 2012, 02:34 PM | #

Can you give us a synopsis of # 23 in the table?

Posted by Helvena on February 09, 2012, 03:01 PM | #

Quite right GW, Rowan Berkeley is a difficult individual.  He has explained his attempt to covert to Islam as his way of getting into the mind set of Islam in order better to understand it.  He was also interested at one point in converting to Judaism for the same reason.  Without putting words in his mouth, I believe his moral order is one of nature, that is the same as the moral order of nature.  He ran me out of town on a rail too but I still I find him interesting and at times insightful.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 03:23 PM | #

I would have thought that superficially converting to something like Islam, as an intellectually grounded exercise in participant observation, is not really entering into a particular ‘way of being in the world’. It would be like trying to understand why someone loves a particular person from the ‘inside’ of the experience. Even if we can all agree on what love generally is, the individual investigating the particular manifestation of love between persons A and B could be told all of the reasons, quality, traits and particular idiosyncrasies as to why they love each other but the investigator would be blind to them – or rather they could not have the same deep-meaning for the investigator as they do for the couple, or close friends, or whatever.

It would like a European attempting to be genuinely Chinese, as opposed to a bad actor, in order to understand the Chinese – a bizarre prospect indeed.

Posted by Emily on February 09, 2012, 04:35 PM | #

Is it not possible to IP ban those who the administration feel are obvious saboteurs? Jews, leftists, liberals and multiculturalists in general would obviously want to infiltrate a valuable place like this and try to turn it into a circus without any relevance or importance.

Those who repeatedly defend Jews and try to downplay the important role they play in the destruction of white countries should not be allowed a propaganda voice here. After all, they have virtually all the anti-white mainstream media at their disposal. Let them stay there.

Posted by Anonymoose on February 09, 2012, 04:56 PM | #

I agree Emily that J Richards is the true hero of MR!

This could have been written with him in mind.

Back against the wall and odds
With the strength of a will and a cause
Your pursuits are called outstanding
You’re emotionally complex
Against the grain of dystopic claims
Not the thoughts your actions entertain
And you, have proved, to be
A real human being, and a real hero
A pilot on a cold, cold morn’
One hundred fifty-five people on board
All safe and all rescued
From the slowly sinking ship
Water warmer than
His head so cool
In that tight bind he knew what to do
And you, have proved, to be
A real human being, and a real hero

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 05:14 PM | #

Emily - so you want Richards banned? A bit harsh methinks.

Posted by Marlowe's Ghost on February 09, 2012, 05:18 PM | #

@Dr Crippen

24 hours later and the Heathers are still at it and don’t seem to know when it is best to tone down the fortissimo.

The most insufferable, is this caricature of an Englishman, Dr Crippen. The sort of ostrich feathered stuffed shirt who is always set up to be horribly done away with as the bad guy Brit in Hollywood movies. Except that this one has the odour of “confirmed batchelor” about him.

If red herrings were not an endangered species before this post, they will be afterwards.

Here’s how “grown-ups” have a discussion:

“intimidates, middle-brow culturally and intellectually improvised, middle-Americans.

conspiracy-minded

(too big a word for you?)

fail both analytically and emotionally to be reasonably-minded normal people.

‘conspiracy’ fruit-cake – one David Icke

rationalise the failure away as really a ‘counter-factual’ success

life of the mind

conspiracy-minded world-view.

emotionally well-balanced

unhealthy psychodrama

half-baked accounts on the internet

“well he’s secretly a J-lizard out to disrupt things”

conspiracy-minded

horseshoed into the conspiracy

‘master of suspicion’

delusion

narcissistic

radically solipsistic pseudo-gnosticism

minuscule circle alone discern ‘the secret truth’.

I’m ‘evil’

foolish nonsense

Icke-Richards conjecture

aluminium-foil department.

The grown-ups

pseudo-scientific rationalisation

deluded nutters

grown-ups

pitiful, whiny and ‘special-pleading’

Go and see a therapist – seriously I’m not joking you need help.”

After that demonstration of erudition and maturity I am kinda reminded of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgiKalO5ibI

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 09, 2012, 05:57 PM | #

Leon Haller should be removed permanently.

Rubbish!

I’ll fight to the death to preserve the special sanctuary J. Richards has created for Leon’s posts.

Posted by dc on February 09, 2012, 06:35 PM | #

Twenty-four hours ago I was desolated. Where in all the world could one go to learn and speak frankly of race? learn and speak frankly of the jew voice which corrupts discussion? where could one go to find information which had not been first processed to exculpate the tribe? Where could I go to do or read something useful for the miseries of our times?

I am immensely glad that Richards has stepped up and put his foot down. May the watchword be, “Put up, or shut up.”

GW, the site hangs on this. MR is a voice for knowledge and reason or it is yet another site for jew babble. There is no middle way.

[As an aside, reading Berkley is a sign of weakmindedness, it shows a willingness to accept sham and misty “profundity” in place of truth. In this regard I must say that I think GW and Helvena hopeless saps.]

An appeal to Ivan and CaptainChaos: I understand very well why you would want to keep aloof from this argument. But still, out of common humanity, will you not add your understanding and perspective?

And let us revive the question: Why is Emma West persecuted, while the she-jew is ignored?

Thank you, Richards.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 06:43 PM | #

@Marlowe’s Poltergeist

“I fear those big words, Stephen said, which make us so unhappy”.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 07:20 PM | #

@Marlowe’s Poltergeist and AC/DC

Could both of you fine gents put to one side, if possible, you obvious loathing for myself and assorted others (yes Marlowe obviously only the wicked and polymorphous perverse speak in anything other than the idiom of ‘Fox News’) and perhaps address the salient issues?

What does good critical thinking look like? What are epistemically virtuous habits? What does sound judgemental rationality entail? Are they on display by everyone? Does knowledge elevate or demean us?

Would it be good intellectual practice to sweep up a range of heterogeneous processes into a single diagnostic? More importantly how can someone discern that is what they, or others, may be engaged in?

After all such issues might be important if one wishes to investigate the world, yes? They might even, on rare occasions, be important in deciding if a conspiracy-theory holds water, yes?

Oh OK sorry for all the J-babble – carry on.

Bed-time for me.

Posted by uh on February 09, 2012, 07:21 PM | #

But still, out of common humanity, will you not add your understanding and perspective?

Wow. You are embarrassing.

Posted by Silver on February 09, 2012, 07:29 PM | #

I would have thought that superficially converting to something like Islam, as an intellectually grounded exercise in participant observation, is not really entering into a particular ‘way of being in the world’. It would be like trying to understand why someone loves a particular person from the ‘inside’ of the experience. Even if we can all agree on what love generally is, the individual investigating the particular manifestation of love between persons A and B could be told all of the reasons, quality, traits and particular idiosyncrasies as to why they love each other but the investigator would be blind to them – or rather they could not have the same deep-meaning for the investigator as they do for the couple, or close friends, or whatever.

I agree.  Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that the experience could provide a somewhat greater insight than is available to an observer strictly on the outside.  A great deal depends on the individual, how able he is to enter into an entirely new mindset even as he as aware of what he’s doing; and if he keeps it up for long enough, who knows?  Take “Donnie Brascoe” (a true story): would you really say being in the company of mafiosos day in day out had no effect on him whatsoever, despite his avowed purpose of collecting intelligence on them and taking them down (ie he wasn’t even genuinely trying to be one)?

In any case, wanting to better understand Islam is more than likely merely an excuse for his reality-evading esotericism.  Hardly the first European to do that, and I have to suspect it’s fairly common among hereditarian racialists.  (Goes something like: Whites are delusional and on their way out; God reality sucks; help, I’ll try anything.  As much as I have it in for the son of a bitch, I can’t help respecting a guy like CapnChaos.  I can’t respect a pathetic reality-evading esotericist at all.)

It would like a European attempting to be genuinely Chinese, as opposed to a bad actor, in order to understand the Chinese – a bizarre prospect indeed.

But probably not impossible.  Do you think this fellow might have pulled it off?  http://www.archive.org/details/1933-10-16_Anzac_In_Curious_Racial_Mix-Up

Posted by dc on February 09, 2012, 07:32 PM | #

“But still, out of common humanity, will you not add your understanding and perspective?

“Wow. You are embarrassing.”

Whom do I embarrass?  If only you and your like, I am content.

Posted by uh on February 09, 2012, 08:36 PM | #

Whom do I embarrass?  If only you and your like, I am content.

Enough of the histrionics, all right.

Posted by Emily on February 09, 2012, 08:53 PM | #

No, Graham, Richards is an excellent contributor. I can understand why he has become a target. I think trolls and saboteurs should be asked and then forced to leave. You seem to be one of them. I wonder why this is allowed to go on. If trolls use new IPs one could just ban those too, or one could approve comments before they appear on the site.

I think it is such a shame that an excellent site like this one does not protect itself better from hostile attacks.

Posted by J Richards on February 09, 2012, 09:04 PM | #

Guessedworker @11

Anyway, we have an urgent lesson to learn about mutual acceptance, that much is certain.  I have often cited the old socialist rule, “No enemy to the left.”  How useful something like that would be to us.

Mutual acceptance isn’t possible between signal and noise.  You also suggest no enemy on the right.  There are two issues here.  The first is you have hostiles pretending to be on the “right.”  The hostiles need to be identified and removed or else little productive activity can be engaged in. 

The second issue is that of the nature of political orientation.  Again, I’d refer you to Dr. John Ray’s analysis of political orientation, published in peer-reviewed journals, and the behavior genetics literature that adds to it.  The left-right issue in colloquial usage, which you resort to, has no correspondence to underlying reality and comes from what you have absorbed from a hostile-dominated media/educational curriculum.  Nothing will come of discussing concepts the hostiles have promoted for their own benefits.

There’s no reason for me to be hostile to anyone who I perceive to be on my side, regardless of this person’s political orientation, and you’ve seen me argue that when it comes to the money issue, even nationality, race, religion and many other demographic variables are irrelevant as the choice is between banker control of money vs. the people controlling money, an issue of universal significance.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 09:11 PM | #

Emily and others - really you honestly think so? I’m sorry to hear that.

To quote Cavalli-Sforza, albeit in a different context: “we must simplify the subject, thus unavoidably falsifying it, and later we must sophisticate the falsely simple beginning away”.

Perhaps that is germane to the issues and concerns here?

OK it really is good-night now.

Toodle pip!

Posted by J Richards on February 09, 2012, 09:14 PM | #

Guessedworker @11

To further expand on the issues I face, let’s look at the comment by Haller @3.

Haller pretends he didn’t notice my requirements of him, but he was given advanced notice on multiple occasions, the posting was prominent and the reference to the rules was posted in other places.  He completely omits that the trashing was preceded by repeated violations of a final warning, which in turn was preceded by multiple warnings, which were preceded by repeated requests. 

He even compares his promotion of the Austrian School to my promotion of “trutherism.”  The latter term has been coined by malicious individuals who wish to suppress any discussion of evidence related to issues, such as 9/11, by denigrating and insulting, not by discussing facts.  I’ve never identified as a “truther”; all I care about is evidence and what it points to.  In contrast, Haller has never provided justification for the two fundamental premises of the Austrian School, and notice his attempt to cite his economics background and Ivy League education, an argument by authority.  Prior to trashing, when the heat turned on Haller, he’s on record for stating that he’d gathered his Austrian School texts and will be reading them to come up with a lengthy response, i.e., this guy’s been promoting things without a clear understanding of what he’s promoting!  All he knows is that it’s good for bankers/Jews.

Haller refers to XPWA’s assessment to state that Haller and I are close in economic ideology, omitting the fact that I corrected XPWA on this.  The only similarity between Haller and me on the money issue is that we recognize the importance of the control of money, but the differences are much more important.  I explicitly state that control of money is important whereas Haller has long derided me for “digressing” into the money issue, which he admits in his comment, but reveals, via his desperate attempts to sabotage a discussion of the money question, that he recognizes the importance of it, too.  On the topic of control, I want money to be controlled by the people, whereas Haller wants it controlled by bankers.

Haller even has the gall to say that he and I are the most free market-oriented people at MR when I’ve repeatedly pointed out that “free market” as used by Haller and the Austrian School is merely an euphemism for bankers, and the work of Kitson that I most recently cited unambiguously shows that a truly free market would never favor a gold standard, which Haller promotes.

Haller’s surprised and angry at my describing his behavior as foul, claiming that he‘s “one of the most relentlessly ‘on-topic’ and all-round earnest and intellectually committed persons participating at MR”!!!

Look at the 9/11 discussion thread: http://www.majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/tenth_anniversary/
Haller was posting on miscegenation [an entire lengthy article] and the necessity to intensify conflict against Muslims, completely oblivious to the facts!

When I discussed the Breivik affair recently, Haller brought in “alien abductions” to help Lister in his task of discrediting me by doing anything except discussing the evidence: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/one_man_mental_hospital_for_anders_behring_breivik#c122100

When I discussed the economics of immigration, Haller, who claimed to have focused on immigration for years, discombobulated, failed to provide an alternative thesis for peer review, started trolling and started demoralizing: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_economics_of_mass_immigration#c121551  [I’d like the reader to read this comment, verify Haller’s comments on that page and notice the similarity with Haller’s comment @3 above.  Haller refused to provide an alternative thesis of mass immigration then and never provided one later, yet he comes back with the same argument on the alleged complexity of causal factors, and yet again he talks about intrinsic deficiencies of whites when I’ve cited and repeatedly pointed to him hard evidence of no deficiencies in racial consciousness or ethnocentrism among whites (see the two links in the comment #c121551 and also other data elsewhere)——just reflect on what a waste of time it is to deal with the same obfuscations, distortions, lies and refuted arguments over and over] 

Haller has repeatedly trolled for a “white Zion.”  He has been repeatedly pointed to problems with the establishment and sustenance of a “white zion,” which he completely ignores.  The latest instance of pointing out these problems was here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/public_schools_cash_is_trash_and_the_new_world_order#c121200  [but follow the link above, #c121551, which comes later, and observe Haller again pitching for a white zion!  Haller even failed to follow up with Jimmy Marr and Randy Garver who offered him money to further his educational endeavors for others and a white zion.

Notice this comment and the one below it: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/intelligence_or_control_of_the_money_supply#c121132 [Haller claims to have accidentally posted at MR a comment that he wanted to post elsewhere, an obvious lie… just look at the context: Haller tried to pass off Jews as white]

Recently, Haller came back as Marloe.  This guy is a pathetic liar.  As Marloe, he said that he’s new here and then proceeded to discuss issues that no new person could be aware of, and only a long-time reader would know.  So isn’t it interesting that this Marloe was reading MR so earnestly but never commented, and then all of a sudden comes to the rescue of Haller?  Ivan and Marlowe’s ghost immediately inferred this was Haller, and the latter was willing to bet $100 on it.  You can verify Marloe is Haller through the control panel, but the important issue is that no control panel access should be necessary as people who think critically should be able to make this inference without access to the control panel.

Then there are straw men galore.  In his comment @3, he says, “The notion that all would be well in whiteyland sans Jewry just strikes me as too limited and naive to warrant much comment,” when I’ve never implied anything of the sort.  He even wonders how is it that without any significant Jewish population Ireland has been letting in lots of non-whites, when he knows, and he’s read it at MR, that the money supply of Ireland and hence the Irish government is under the control of the international bankers [mostly jews]. 

These examples are the tip of the iceberg.  Hopefully you’ll understand that the requirements I placed on Haller aren’t really about the Austrian School but an excuse to get rid of a clearly malicious person, with an extensive history of disruptive behaviors and trolling.  Emily suggests an IP or straightforward ban, which would be easy, but I went the formal route of providing him a challenge so as not to lose much credibility.

Haller’s a serpent begging you to give him a ride across the river.  If you do, he’ll bite you when you reach the other side because this is what serpent’s do.  The decision is yours, but you’ve been warned.  If you put a serpent in your boat, good luck to you, but I’m not getting on that boat. 

There’s no possibility of Haller and me working at the same website.  Even if you force rules on Haller such as not promoting the Austrian School without justification, he’s got an arsenal of disruptive methods and falsehoods that he’ll use to urinate, defecate and vomit all over MR.  You have to decide whether you’d rather have me or Haller at MR.

Posted by J Richards on February 09, 2012, 09:19 PM | #

Guessedworker @11

Now let’s look at Dr. Lister’s comment @4.  It’s the same Icke, aluminum foils, etc. mockery but absolute refusal to discuss any evidence.  Dr. Lister comes up with the excuse that it’s a waste of time to discuss the evidence because of unfalsifiability, but notice that he never addresses the unfalsifiability of my argument on 9/11, but brings in a bizarre, evidence-less example from Icke instead, and accuses me of analytical, emotional deficiencies and of not being reasonable!  What is this?  Evidence-based arguments are easily falsifiable.

Dr. Lister yet again brings in the issue of engineering aspects of 9/11, failing to note that of the 27 items in the table that he surely has seen, 26 don’t address engineering aspects.  In addition, some of the engineering aspects don’t require advanced knowledge to understand, as the article notes and refers people to the right sources where advanced engineering knowledge isn’t required.  How many times do I have to repeat this?  And are all these repetitions a productive way for me to utilize my time? 

Dr. Lister earlier responded to a challenge to come up with an original, relevant piece drawing upon his alleged Ph.D. in biology by saying that advanced biological concepts can get a little too complicated, and apparently he’s decided to spare the readership!  Or is it that he’d rather not subject such a piece for peer review at MR?  This guy’s arrogant enough to believe that there are no other people who read MR who understand advanced biology and look foreword to original contributions informed by the biological sciences.  His failure to understand simple behavior genetics literature, on record at MR, speaks volumes.

Is it not apparent to you that Dr. Lister is phony and malicious? 

I need the freedom to enforce rules that failure to address evidence in evidence-based arguments = trash.  This stops Dr. Lister with minimal loss of credibility on my part.  Otherwise, I can’t work here.  You have to choose whether you’d rather have Dr. Lister here or me, and I’m not asking you to get rid of Dr. Lister.  All I need is the freedom to enforce rules that naive persons and those sitting on the fence will agree is a fair requirement to either address the evidence or get lost.

Posted by J Richards on February 09, 2012, 09:29 PM | #

Guessedworker

Since I addressed the issue of who did 9/11 in the post, let’s look at some of the useful things in the discussion on the original article.  Dasein criticized some of the engineering aspects of controlled demolition.  This made be take a deeper look at one of the resources I had cited at first, AE911, which turned out to be controlled opposition.  So I replaced the link with the right one.  Dasein’s criticism thus proved to be constructive. 

On the other hand, Robert Reis referred me to a 5-minute video and an economics research article on insider trading, both of which I added to the article.  John mentioned that the Jews arrested for the Mexican bomb plot had fake Pakistani passports, of which I wasn’t aware, and I added this information as it shows yet another attempt by them to blame Muslims.

At the same time, the behaviors of Haller, Lister, Uh, Silver, Hunter Wallace, Greg Johnson, Lee John Barnes, and others were in a different league, representing noise.  This was a couple of months ago.

Now, with my continued factual postings on matters reflecting negatively on Jews, foul behavior by the opposition has become a big problem.

The interesting thing is that over the past couple of months I haven’t been discussing the Jewish Question.  In order to discuss the JQ, one has to show that there is a JQ in the first place, and in the mass of my writings, no JQ has been shown.  How could one show the existence of a JQ?  The only way to do so is to discuss Jewish behavior.  A few behaviors here and there won’t suffice, and the behaviors of individuals acting alone hardly count.  One has gather a large number of instances of group behaviors spread across time and cultures to show that there’s a JQ.  But here, I’ve discussed very few group behaviors, mostly in recent decades or recent centuries, which doesn’t even amount to warming up, and you can look at the response.

I’ve been discussing specific incidents, not the JQ.  It could be said that I probably believe in the existence of a JQ, but a personal belief without supporting evidence isn’t up for discussion.  What can be discussed are specific incidents with supporting evidence.

Whether I could post enough on specific incidents that lend themselves into a JQ is an open question, but the resistance attacks a discussion of specific incidents by accusing me of monocausality and other straw men as if I’m discussing the JQ when I haven’t even shown the existence of a JQ, and fails to address the specifics of the specific incidents!

Even in instances where I refer to Jews in international banking, because I haven’t shown the existence of a JQ, my argument can only mean that the Jews behind international banking are a problem, not that the Jewish community in general is a problem.  And when I’ve identified Talmudism as a problem, it explains the behavior of malicious Jews without explaining the extent to which the community in general is a problem because no JQ has been shown.

I can barely discuss specific incidents.  This is why I need the freedom to enforce rules to keep out those without the decency or willingness or ability to engage in fair discussion.  It’s possible to do so with minimal loss of credibility.  I can totally understand if you disagree and are unwilling, and will harbor no malice toward you regardless of your decision.  But you do need to take sides.

Posted by zalmoxis on February 09, 2012, 09:54 PM | #

Re the “two factions” referenced above: apart from the lunacy of asserting that his is the serious group, Herr Richards should not be so certain that his faction could withstand any serious comparison with the anti-Richards group. As I see it, they sort of divide as follows:

Richardsmenschen:  Richards, dc, Ivan, Helvena, Jimmy Marr, GenoType, XPWA, CaptainChaos, and some newer types

zurechnungsfahigmenschen: Haller, Lister, uh, Silver, Dasein, Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, Renner

(apologies for any omissions)

This must be the first reasonable thing Leon Haller has ever written in his life.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 09, 2012, 09:54 PM | #

All I need is the freedom to enforce rules that naive persons and those sitting on the fence will agree is a fair requirement to either address the evidence or get lost.

I don’t think this is asking too much.

Posted by zalmoxis on February 09, 2012, 10:06 PM | #

The summary of Jews did 9/11 evidence given in the OP is good and more than adequate, but it omits what is probably my favorite (though admittedly not the most important) data point in this trendline - the connection between Nick Berg and Zacarias Moussaoui:

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-13/us/berg.encounter_1_zacarias-moussaoui-20th-hijacker-e-mail?_s=PM:US

When Nicholas Berg took an Oklahoma bus to a remote college campus a few years ago, the American recently beheaded by terrorists allowed a man with terrorist connections to use his laptop computer, according to his father.

Michael Berg said the FBI investigated the matter more than a year ago. He stressed that his son was in no way connected to the terrorists who captured and killed him.

Government sources told CNN that the encounter involved an acquaintance of Zacarias Moussaoui—the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

According to Berg, his son was taking a course a few years ago at a remote campus of the University of Oklahoma near an airport. He described how on one particular day, his son met “some terrorist people—who no one knew were terrorists at the time.”

At one point during the bus ride, Berg said, the man sitting next to his son asked if he could use Nick’s laptop computer.

“It turned out this guy was a terrorist and that he, you know, used my son’s e-mail, amongst many other people’s e-mail who he did the same thing to,” Berg said.

Government sources said Berg gave the man his password, which was later used by Moussaoui, the sources said.

The sources said the man who used Berg’s e-mail knew Moussaoui, now awaiting trial on federal charges that could bring a death sentence. But the sources would not disclose details of how the men were connected.

Okay, so all these “terrorist” emails actually originated on suspicious International Jew of Mystery’s computer… and that’s because this Jew just went around giving his email password to random Arabs, one of whom by sheer chance turned out to be an “Islamic terrorist” connected with 9/11.  Alright, got it.

Posted by Michael on February 09, 2012, 10:28 PM | #

@Haller

Richardsmenschen:  Richards, dc, Ivan, Helvena, Jimmy Marr, GenoType, XPWA, CaptainChaos, and some newer types

zurechnungsfahigmenschen: Haller, Lister, uh, Silver, Dasein, Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, Renner

You are aware that there are Germans posting and reading here? Stop making a fool of yourself. Your faulty use of German is at best ridiculous.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 09, 2012, 10:43 PM | #

Can’t sleep so I’m back…

OK I really do not want to carry on with this ridiculous non-issue but am starting to lose patience with the shit-for-brains crew. Sorry GW.

Let’s revisit a very brief discussion of mine 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. Or ‘noise’ now in Richards deluded mind.

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.

Note Richards saying well don’t discuss engineering matters (which apparently are ‘simple’) discuss my other 25 lines of evidence/auxiliary ‘reserve’ micro-hypotheses that act as ‘saving’ mechanisms for the overall meta-hypothesis; 9/11 was a conspiracy by you know who.

And coincidently how do you decide upon who or what is ‘controlled opposition’ Mr. Richards? I suspect it is because they don’t fit in with you world-view rather than by any judgementally rational and objective method.

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.

So instead I must address a barrage of 25 other lines of ‘evidence’. Demanding that is ‘closing down’ debate as much as anything else as how can anyone afford the time and effort to examine/debunk all this ‘evidence’ (much of which will I suspect be of no quality at all) to a standard beyond your doubt? And even if they did look at the evidence and they took a different view from yours, you would utter ‘Jew’ or whatever in their direction and the case is closed, yes? Do you seriously deny that’s how you operate Mr. Richards?

And no ten or fifteen minutes of so writing a commentary on a blog, or reading one, is not generally regarded as a serious investment of intellectual effort.

Hence, to engage with such people/ideas in anything like very serious and costly way is a totally waste of someone’s valuable time as those on the other side of the argument are themselves deeply unserious and untrustworthy in their methods of analysis and thought. They are only serious about maintaining their monomania no matter what reality might suggest otherwise.

So Richards instead of this one-way street were you demand I (and others) address your questions perhaps you might address my points. I think I do raise some important issues.

Or is it more J-babble ‘noise’ in your eyes?

Really what is the point of seriously attempting to engage with people of your ilk?

I don’t really care about 9/11 because very little in the grand historical scheme of things stands or falls by it; the real issue is your trustworthiness, and your outrageous epistemic deficiencies which are clear for the people with above room-temperature IQs to observe.

Posted by zalmoxis on February 09, 2012, 11:05 PM | #

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.

Do you consider the notion that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 to be “falsifiable”?  If so, what sort of evidence would it take for you to reconsider your view?

Do you think the idea that Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 to be well-supported by evidence?  If so, what is that evidence?  Why does nobody, ever, argue for Osama bin Laden’s culpability on the basis of evidence, but instead always seem to resort to “space lizards”, David Icke, etc.?

What J. Richards says about you and your ilk is essentially correct: you talk a good game about evidence, but never actually provide any to support your views.  All the people who are actually interested in evidence, and not merely in argument by authority, seem to be of the “conspiracy mindset”.  Why is that?

Posted by Ivan on February 09, 2012, 11:18 PM | #

The Final Solution of Haller’s Problem

J Richards is right, folks. We are dealing with a communication traffic problem here. Haller’s Problem is a technical problem and it should be addressed as such. Here is the solution:

(a) MR should open an account and add a donation button to the page.

(b) Leon Haller and K (Lister, Uh, Silver, Hunter Wallace, Greg Johnson, Lee John Barnes, and all the rest from the vermatscht camp) should donate any amount they wish to the cause of saving the white race from the Jews.

(c) For each $10 donated, any one of them should be allowed one comment (Leon should get $2 volume discount, but has to pay $5 value surcharge, so his fee is $13)

(d) Vermatscht group should be encouraged to use MR toll road as mush as possible.

(e) When the traffic is approaching the jam point, jack up the toll accordingly.

Posted by CFE on February 09, 2012, 11:30 PM | #

There’s no possibility of Haller and me working at the same website.

I’m far from persuaded of the wisdom of this ultimatum, but if it comes to it, I’m for J Richards.

Leon Haller - Even I can figure out that “Abandon your homelands and make white Zion” starts with “Abandon your homelands”.

true27!

Posted by J Richards on February 09, 2012, 11:47 PM | #

Guessedworker

Notice Dr. Lister’s addendum @46.

He continues with falsifiability, confirmation bias and asymmetrical use of evidence, not substantiating these charges with a single example from any of my specific arguments!  He provides an illustrative example of problems with my thinking by invoking an analogy: a conspiracy that argues for space lizards secretly ruling the world and being the root cause of the world’s misery and evil!

Can you not see that an honest person who’s incapable of evaluating the engineering aspects of 9/11, regardless of whether he’s been exposed to the other 26 items in the table, wouldn’t be comparing the argument to a space lizards conspiracy while claiming that “I don’t really care about 9/11 because very little in the grand historical scheme of things stands or falls by it”?

Can you not see that this person is mendacious and malevolent?

Dr. Lister’s unfamiliar with the advanced engineering aspects of 9/11 and sums up my suggestion that he can very well look at the remaining 26 items and the easier-to-understand engineering aspects of it in terms of “well don’t discuss engineering matters (which apparently are ‘simple’)” and then compares my argument to moving the goalpost of falsification when Dr. Lister hasn’t attempted to falsify the engineering claims or any other specific claims!

Dr. Lister asks me how I determine who or what is controlled opposition.  But he doesn’t give me the opportunity to answer before suggesting that it’s anyone who doesn’t fit in my world-view!  “Controlled opposition” is inferred when someone superficially acting or claiming to be the opposition actually helps the opposition, and it’s shown that this isn’t an inadvertent result of incompetence or ignorance.  The topic is complex and not suitable for elaboration in a comment, but discussing the matter with Dr. Lister doesn’t appear productive since he continues to bring in space lizards.

You have to ask yourself if Dr. Lister is a valuable contributor at MR.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 12:02 AM | #

Graham,

Really what is the point of seriously attempting to engage with people of your ilk?

As Cioran said, all attempts to improve mankind end in the same way — as crusades against humor. The Bot wishes to suck all the fun out of the variety (“noise”) here and calls that efficiency, when he isn’t accusing us all of being “Jews, or working in the interests of Jews”. In reality, he is a clinically paranoid solipsist who can’t function properly when confronted with living beings who don’t share his manias.

Ere I depart again, bear this in mind about the whiny grand-standing Little Dictator Who Needs Freedom To Enforce The Ruuuules:

Haller’s a serpent begging you to give him a ride across the river.  If you do, he’ll bite you when you reach the other side because this is what serpent’s do.  The decision is yours, but you’ve been warned.  If you put a serpent in your boat, good luck to you, but I’m not getting on that boat.

I need the freedom to enforce rules that failure to address evidence in evidence-based arguments = trash.  This stops Dr. Lister with minimal loss of credibility on my part.  Otherwise, I can’t work here.

You see the completely detached mindset he brings to the blog. He’s in a huff because he can’t “work”. That’s all this amounts to for him.

Let’s set ourselves a simple challenge — because we’re not monkeys whom J Richards has the right or authority to train with his bitchy demands and boring lists. Here is Guessedworker on the purpose of MajorityRichards:

1. To provide a platform for capable people to go beyond the analysis of the crisis of European Man, which one encounters everywhere in the nationalist blogosphere, and to think creatively.

2. To provide an invigorating space in which already knowledgeable people can challenge themselves and others, and expand their understanding.

Does J Richards “think creatively”, or he is just inexhaustibly hyper-rational, all too free with facts & figures, personally corrupt, and does not he rather just reduce everything to two well-known values, forcibly dragging the site away from its reputation as an avant-garde post-nationalist idea space with a changing roster of idiosyncratic and plain kooky commentators? does he “go beyond the analysis of the crisis of European Man” by reducing every phenomenon in the world to “Jews did it” and leaving surreal three-point replies with bold titles like he’s the voice of freaking God Almighty?

Does he provide an invigorating space? does he generate the sort of chaotically wending commentary stimulated even by others, or does he rather restrict debate by bullying everyone into accepting his faulty terms? is he not simply exhausting rather than invigorating? does melodramatically “challenging” someone to read this or that book, especially when they have given no signal of welcoming such a challenge, expand anyone’s understanding, or stall absolutely everything as it all runs to ground on the shoals of “Juden” and “Money Supply”?

Guessedworker has manifestly failed his own website by leaving the Richards Bot in charge. Paranoiacs absolutely do not belong anyplace NEAR positions of authority, for this is ALWAYS what results.

Another point then I’m off. I can’t breathe in this atmosphere. Now the nobodies Helvena and Crappinchaos will ostentatiously applaud the Bot for “driving off all the Jews”, natch.

Guessedworker sez:

I have known him quite long enough to count him as a well-meaning and sincere friend, and a fierce supporter of our cause.

Sounds to me as though the Bot is an oldie like G-dub. I can easily picture that. Consider his stilted, moralistic verbiage — everyone is foul, he is working, etc. He’s completely rigid and cut off from reality. In a word, he’s a stiff old graybeard with no children, and this site is to become the primary vehicle of his manias.

NOW THEN ... I have real things to do, with real people who are also probably Jews, and must take leave of you my fiat-niggaz. Word of advice. As evinced by the quotes above, a crack in the Bot’s machine-like demeanor has appeared, and I task you with not letting up until you have broken in him half and driven him off. He is vulnerable. All you have to do — he tipped his hand — is make more noise. I began calling him a Bot for a reason; all he has is his exhausting pretense of hyper-rationality as a mask for his personal failings and his manias. He is “working” and he hates “noise”. He is just grinding shit out — 90% of it utterly backward ad hoc fallacies — to cow you into either leaving or sycophancy. Let me him know that MajorityRights was never about sucking the air out of inquiry and reducing things to simplistic terms. Drive the crack straight into his head until he walks off in disgust, one of his strongest passions.

DEFEAT THE RICHARDS BOT, MY NIGGAZ!

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 12:42 AM | #

@uh

You owe an apology to dc.

Posted by zalmoxis on February 10, 2012, 01:15 AM | #

He’s also very good on Islam but he can’t stand WN, he thinks we are all just stooges of right wing corporate capitalism (heavy on the Jewish flavoring)

It would be nice to be able to counter this claim by pointing out a list of, say, five WN sites that do not meet this description, but unfortunately that seems to be a difficult thing to do.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 01:16 AM | #

Well I’m on the coffee now and as such stay up, then get up and get on with my daily routine.

@uh

I think your right - exhausting and deflationary sums the Bot up.

But look at this turd in the epistemic punchbowl:

The J. Richards tin-foil wearer said:

“Dr. Lister asks me how I determine who or what is controlled opposition. But he doesn’t give me the opportunity to answer before suggesting that it’s anyone who doesn’t fit in my world-view! “Controlled opposition” is inferred when someone superficially acting or claiming to be the opposition actually helps the opposition, and it’s shown that this isn’t an inadvertent result of incompetence or ignorance. The topic is complex and not suitable for elaboration in a comment.”

Ignore my piss-taking about lizards, that’s not the issue any you damn well know it. You can answer now in any way you see fit. You apparently cannot offer any mechanism or procedure that would satisfy the criteria of judgemental rationality and objectivity for discerning “controlled opposition”. It is “too complex” for you to comment on. Oh well nothing to see here – Richards just knows in ‘his bones’ in a very complex sort of way these unquestionable insights. Well that is both authoritative and definitive. What a trustworthy method.

Do you think you would get away with such ‘reasoning’ in a first-year undergraduate course in analytical philosophy – something I’m sure you’re also an expert in – such as; biology, engineering, economics, social policy, psychology, history etc.

As uh suggested it would be sad if MR became Majority Richards and the project outlined by GW would almost certainly die rather rapidly, replaced with an echo-chamber of the hard of thinking braying “Jews – Money - Jews” as the ‘secret’ answer to life, the universe and everything else – the Primum movens of everything that can be conceived, in this or any other possible world.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 01:27 AM | #

The Vermatscht Cabal is losing it. Good job, JR.

Posted by J Richards on February 10, 2012, 02:24 AM | #

On further reflection

On further reflection, it has occurred to me that I may be asking for too much.  It’s not just implementing some rules to keep out a variety of commenters and reduce input from hostiles, I’d also like to do things such as summarize the behavior of Søren Renner and crew and force them to explain in clear, plain English why one should conclude that they aren’t serving Jewish interests, with the intent of asking them to leave if they can’t explain their behaviors satisfactorily.  The latter in particular places GW in a bind as he’s forced to pick sides even though he maintains friendly relations with all bloggers, and I’m one against many.  He may even have a difficult time accepting that my assertion of MR’s extensive and intimate involvement with Jews or those serving Jewish interests extends to the bloggers and administrators. 

At the same time, I harbor no malice toward GW, and even if I effectively exit MR, there’s no reason for me to be unavailable for technical administrative work, none of it involving user banning, comment moderation or enforcing any rules or comments policy.  In other words, if Haller starts vomiting all over, as usual, I’d be detached from MR and it’ll be GW’s responsibility to explain and account for why he’s letting him do it.

My effective exit from MR would be defeat in the short term, but the long-term is a different matter.  I’ll carry on at another website or other websites.  I could drive away many commenters from MR, the ones in my faction, not intentionally out of malice, but because they would rather be where the useful discussion is taking place.  I’d say easily half of the people more or less regularly blogging and commenting at MR are either Jews or serving Jewish interests if not Jews.  With the faction in my camp largely driven away, the Jewish faction could easily exceed 80%.

This would result in a rather interesting scenario where the Jews end up largely talking to each other, a partial waste of their time as they’re not gainfully employed in disruptive tasks at MR.  Their advantage would be to use the healthy traffic of MR to mislead newcomers, but not if I can help it.

In my estimation, succinct high quality information on a few issues is especially relevant and particularly harmful to Jewish interests.  Some examples:

1. Jews did 9/11
2. The control of money by international bankers. 
3. The Holocaust is a hoax.
4. Jewish deception.
5. Jews have no claim to Palestine as the Ashkenazi are Khazar converts and the Middle Eastern Jews aren’t of Israelite/Judahite descent but of Canaanite-Edomite descent [Judaism is simply a relabeling of Talmudism, which evolved from Pharisee beliefs].
6. The Jewish historical role in slavery, particularly the trans-Atlantic slave trade of blacks.
7. Jews and communism, including economics, warfare, Marxist sociology, critical theory (Frankfurt School), post-structuralism and postmodernism.
8. False claims about intrinsic deficiencies of whites or deceptively shifting the blame to white elites.

Of this list, 1 and 2 are already linked prominently at MR, and 2 is pending a major overhaul.  Let’s say I add the rest, and I can do so without any front-page entries, i.e., work behind the scenes.  Now, the Jewish faction is unlikely to risk its credibility in asking GW to remove them.  So those who stumble across the website will encounter multiple prominent pages featuring very negative information on Jews while 80% or more of the contributors are busy deflecting attention away from Jews, lying, misleading and deceiving.  This will leave many newcomers bewildered rather than simply end up mislead by the contributors.  Some will figure out that a few contributors presumably had good intentions at some point but the website has apparently been overrun by hasbarats.  Few would end up mislead by the Jewish faction.

So done right, we end up with MR contributors largely from the Jewish camp, mostly deprived of an opportunity to disrupt, while being unable to mislead most naive readers who may stumble across.  I’d consider this victory.

So maybe I should answer a couple of comments here and there and then mostly stay away [rarely post] or post about any new websites I’ve started working at and then not post further, just doing background work as stated above… something to think about.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 02:54 AM | #

I’d say easily half of the people more or less regularly blogging and commenting at MR are either Jews or serving Jewish interests if not Jews.

IS THIS THE WAY A SANE MAN UNDERSTANDS HIS FELLOWS?

My effective exit from MR would be defeat in the short term, but the long-term is a different matter.

HE IS CRACKING. IF YOU WISH TO SALVAGE THIS WEBSITE BEFORE IT BECOMES ANOTHER WN CONTHPIRATHY BLOG, STRIKE NOW PEOPLE.

DEFEAT THE RICHARDS BOT MY UNRIGHTEOUS JEWISH NIGGAZ!!! lloozozozozoz

*screen shot taken of all my recent comments in event of covert deletion — yes he has been doing it and will continue to do so as long as he maintains privileges!

Posted by Al Ross on February 10, 2012, 03:06 AM | #

The Government of New Zealand understands the JQ.

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/wandering-jew

Posted by Lew on February 10, 2012, 03:14 AM | #

Some of these responses to Richards are unhinged. J Richards’ basic suggestion is very reasonable: people should be required to address facts and arguments. What’s wrong with that? I have briefly exchanged words with Richards maybe 3 or 4 times. I have criticized Richards’ positions on 9/11, on the Fed, and on slandering people as controlled opposition with no credible evidence, and have also referred to him as Jew Richards and as a crank.

Upon reflection, however, now that I’m thinking about it, I have to say Richards has never been anything but cordial to me. I criticized his views using basic facts, he responded, and that was the end of it. Richards takes some strange positions. So what? He also often has some interesting things to say, and strange positions are easy enough to rebut with facts. When I criticized Richards’ position on the Fed, for example, I pointed out that in building his case that Jews created the Fed he seems to ignore the contributions of White Gentiles like William Aldrich. It’s pretty easy to falsify a claim that Jews alone created the Fed by pointing to the basic facts of key White Gentile participation. There was nothing difficult about that; anyone can do it, and it’s not unreasonable to ask people to rebut based on facts. When he slandered counter currents as controlled opposition and cited an atypically weak article by Michael O’Meara as evidence, I pointed out he was cherry picking and misrepresenting a small handful of articles when there are 100s of articles at CC. Again, that was pretty simple. Richards claimed CC was controlled opposition. Part of his evidence was a handful of articles out of 100s. I pointed out that he cherry picked. End of story. His claim about CC was pretty easy to falsify with facts.

So Richards while wrong on many points is pretty reasonable when you stick to facts. 

The problem here is that Richards most strident critics seem to have real problem with this reasonable request to stick to the facts, and this group, interestingly enough, appears to be a group fairly sympathetic to Jews.

J Richards,

You need to quit slandering people as controlled opposition with weak evidence. You’re too indiscriminate with those accusations, and it undercuts your increasingly compelling case about some of these other people.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 10, 2012, 03:25 AM | #

GW,

But you know, don’t you, that “the only way out is through the Jew”?  Preferably, for many if not most, by using the German Heavy Model.

And at some level on your journey from where you started to here you must always have known that it would inevitably come down to that.  Your “philosophy” has really only ever been about finding a way for a man, who is capable of it, to act with utmost sternness in dispatching our racial enemies without also having his moral faculty irrevocably disfigured.  I am sorry to say, there is probably no alchemy of the intellect which can accomplish the former without also bringing in train the latter.  This is verily why the Jews are our misfortune, for even if we survive look what they will have done to us.  But perhaps, in a sense, we should be grateful to them.  What worthy of deepest love does not too merit the greatest sacrifice?  Reaching out for eternity and ever falling short; the bitter and the sweet.  Life.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 10, 2012, 04:44 AM | #

JR,

Your proposed exit from MR doesn’t really seem to serve much purpose other than satisfying your moral vanity.  Your primary complaint seems to be that inclusion of those you deem Jews and serving Jewish interests in debate at MR would cause you the otherwise unneeded work of constantly repeating your few basic points and their buttressing evidence.  This complaint is silly indeed.  Why?  Simply, were you afforded the opportunity to debate your favored issues in the mainstream media, to publish your writing perpetually in mainstream periodicals so that it could be kept in the minds of a public with an inevitably short attention span, repetition for repetition’s sake in the face of dishonorable opposition is something you would face anyway!  Are you telling me you would refuse to take your arguments to the mainstream media if given the opportunity without first knowing the opposition would always play nice and play fair?  I think we both know the answer to that.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 10, 2012, 05:39 AM | #

You need to quit slandering people as controlled opposition with weak evidence. You’re too indiscriminate with those accusations, and it undercuts your increasingly compelling case about some of these other people.

Lew is telling us something quite profound here.  Something that he does not yet realize the full implications of.  He is telling us that he needs the permission of those he views as occupying positions of rightful authority to sanction his thoughts.  Lew is telling us that he will not recognize those positions of rightful authority being shifted to other authority figures unless certain protocols of competition (“fairness” and the like) are adhered to in disputing those positions of authority; and hence the right to sanction new thoughts for him.  Now, once those new authority figures are in place, then it will be they who define for Lew just what are the proper rules of engagement with whom they say are the enemy.  Then, and only then, can the gloves come off.  Not before. 

If Richards does not understand this then he needs to open his eyes.  Unless, that is, Richards is simply too good for this world.

Posted by MOB on February 10, 2012, 06:47 AM | #

I got a job now and I’m keeping it.  I’m walking a white line all the time . . . I don’t bother nobody, nobody bothers me.”  You better start doing the same thing.”

Nada:  “That line’s in the middle of the road . . . that’s the worst place to drive.”

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 08:03 AM | #

Bill @7

Bill,

This is a real question from me. Do you find my comment @3 “overly-intellectualising”, or otherwise unintelligible? I swear I do try to write as clearly as I can, with a normal person in mind (note: I think a lot of persons here don’t necessarily write to be widely understood).

I do intuit that GW’s purpose in founding the site was to encourage the development of nationalist philosophy at the highest theoretical level (I’d like to see the site move more in that direction, frankly; it’s been degenerating of late). There must be better places just for spreading basic facts (eg, for the US, there is the American Renaissance site, among others), which is certainly vital, too.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 08:19 AM | #

MOB@20 and 63

1. You are confused and stupid. What have you contributed but dissension? MR would be vastly better off without the likes of you and your cronies.

2. Greg Johnson was placed in the anti-Richards faction, you useless eater, because your hero Richards has called him and his site “controlled [Jew] opposition”. Should I have therefore placed him in the JR faction? JR himself would surely have objected. Note also the “two factions” idea was JR’s. (It’s clear that there are two major, opposed factions at MR.-JR)

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 08:40 AM | #

Michael@45

Perhaps you are one of those Germans? Because of course your reading comprehension for the English language is rather poor.

Posted by Michael on February 09, 2012, 10:28 PM | #

@Haller

Richardsmenschen:  Richards, dc, Ivan, Helvena, Jimmy Marr, GenoType, XPWA, CaptainChaos, and some newer types

zurechnungsfahigmenschen: Haller, Lister, uh, Silver, Dasein, Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, Renner

You are aware that there are Germans posting and reading here? Stop making a fool of yourself. Your faulty use of German is at best ridiculous.

I have never claimed to know German. I do not, beyond a few words and phrases.

I used the words as I did in a tongue in cheek manner, referencing two facts about MR:

1) The post is by Richards, and is another typical example of his fascistic, authoritarian manner. Given, furthermore, his signature anti-Semitism, I thought it would be a bit humorous to use “Germanic” words.

2) I also had in mind the example of Comrade Uh and his various neologisms (eg, “fiatcarbmenschen”).

Sorry you took it all so literally, old chap. Perhaps you would like to supply the correct terms (I’m sure your excellent command of German will enable you to perceive the meanings I had intended to convey)?

Who are you , btw? I can’t seem to recall anything associated with you.

Posted by MOB on February 10, 2012, 08:56 AM | #

Free speech and open discussion of “our issues” is safe in the hands of our betters in the restricted and closed structure preferred by our elites.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/02/mark-weber-on-the-jewish-question-today/

Trickle out and trickle down.  Thank you, C-C.

Ours is not to reason why.  Ours is but to read and donate.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 09:31 AM | #

J Richards is right, folks. Good Captain is a controlled opposition in the sense JR has defined the meaning of controlled opposition: his position serves Jewish interests. Just like Hitler’s position and actions did.

By 1933, i.e. by the time Hitler came to power, it was obvious that Stalin turned against the Jews and was on his way to completely driving out the Jews and turning around the Jewish takeover of Russia in 1917. Hitler was a Jewish attempt to defeat Stalin’s Russia. The WWII launched by Hitler killed more white people than all other wars combined in the entire history of mankind. On the other hand, Hitler did not kill that many Jews - he simply drove some of them out of Germany which didn’t do any good in terms of solving the Jewish problem.

Lew is another controlled opposition, perhaps, the most sophisticated one of the The Vermatscht Cabal. He is not as obvious as plain-stupid Dr Lister and uh, not to mention Haller.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 10:05 AM | #

Lister@46

This comment is quite brilliant. It deserves several read-throughs.

I hate to be burdensome, Graham, but you should really at some future point when you can find the time do up a post on the subject, providing some kind of template for how to think about ‘outre’ allegations. I can tell that, as a philosophically inclined scientist, you have obviously devoted more than a little thought to the methodological and epistemological underpinnings of both your own discipline, and science more broadly. I now perceive, in a way that I hadn’t really thought of in the past, that this is an excellent background for debunking conspiracist nonsense without allowing oneself to get sucked into their game of having to waste enormous amounts of time disproving each little piece of their ‘evidence’.

Of course the real issue is upon whom the burden of proof falls. Your example of the space lizards is actually quite apt (I can hear JR in the background: “But I don’t believe in space lizards! Point out any precise reference of mine to space lizards! Why would someone mention space lizards unless they are acting with malicious intent?” and so forth). If JR states that space lizards are controlling the Federal Reserve, how exactly could I disprove that? Must I set up a base camp, or at least multiple cameras, in the Fed’s vicinity, to monitor comings and goings? But of course the lizards, being from a more advanced civilization, have access to cloaking devices. That’s why we never see them.

I could do up a bit of humor on this (incidentally, your wit has been in rare form of late; you had me laughing out loud at several points over the past week), but the point is clear. WRT claims that are very remote from conventional experience, the burden of proof rests with their maker. If JR has even a prima facie case wrt 9-11, then he should assemble all his evidence, present each individual element of it to a credentialed or recognized expert in the relevant field, get them all to sign off on their portions of the case, do up a formal report, and start trying to interest major newspapers in the topic. Perhaps I’m overly ‘duped’, but I have a hard time believing that an evidentially plausible case demonstrating that 9-11 is all a big lie would not interest someone in the media. The media needs to sell content, after all, and this would be HUGE.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 10:20 AM | #

The communication channel is getting jammed by this son of a bitch again. Jack up the toll for Leon Trotsky from $15 to $50 ... per word!

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 10:21 AM | #

Richards@56

Graham, did you see this comment, truly a paranoid masterpiece?

You like serious literature, right? So do I. What do you think of Richards as a literary character? I mean, I wish I could have written something like #56, and attributed it to Richards. The mentality on display is amazing. Imagine you’re writing a novel about a doctor working at an asylum. Perhaps it could be in epistolary form.

Strange thoughts, I know. But I;m almost starting to wonder whether JR is playing an elaborate joke of some kind (I know Ivan tries to do this; his comments are perfectly predictable in their attempts to stir up animosities and weird digressions).

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 10:25 AM | #

ATTENTION: NOTE WELL THIS COMMENT FROM ‘IVAN’ THE TOAD — WHO HERE EITHER TIPS HIS HAND AS A GENUINE TROLL OR EXCEEDS THE RICHARDS BOT IN PARANOIA:

J Richards is right, folks. Good Captain is a controlled opposition in the sense JR has defined the meaning of controlled opposition: his position serves Jewish interests. Just like Hitler’s position and actions did.

CAPTAINCHAOS, WHO UNTIL JUST RECENTLY HAS BEEN TOADYING FOR RICHARDS!!! IT DOESN’T OCCUR TO ANY OF THESE TOADS THAT RATHER THAN ANYONE HERE “SERVING JEWISH INTERESTS”, THEY MERELY SERVE HIS INTERESTS — WHICH IS TO REMAKE MR INTO HIS NOW DEFUNCT JUDENFREI.ORG.

See here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012884.html

OMG I LINKED TO A JEW!!!! LOZOOZOZ BECAUSE I AM ONE LZLOZLZ

By 1933, i.e. by the time Hitler came to power, it was obvious that blah blah I’m full of shit and rewriting history to suit myself [...] Hitler was a Jewish attempt to defeat Stalin’s Russia.

LOLOZOZOZOZOZZZZ!!! Folks, friends, my gay Jewish niggaz of foul unrighteousness, DO YOU NEED MORE PROOF OF THE UTTERLY BASE TREND THE BOT HAS SET IN MOTION WITH HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS?

Lew is another controlled opposition, perhaps, the most sophisticated one of the The Vermatscht Cabal.

YOU READ THAT RIGHT! He means Lew of this comment just above:

Richards’ basic suggestion is very reasonable:

I have to say Richards has never been anything but cordial to me.

So Richards while wrong on many points is pretty reasonable when you stick to facts.

The problem here is that Richards most strident critics seem to have real problem with this reasonable request to stick to the facts, and this group, interestingly enough, appears to be a group fairly sympathetic to Jews.

Here Lew PLAYS ALONG WITH RICHARDS’ PARANOID DELUSION AND HYPER-RATIONAL PERSECUTION OF OTHERS, and Ivan STILL DECLARES HIM “CONTROLLED OPPOSITION!!!

You stiffnecks need to see past my caps and my lolozozoozz. Look, it’s a website, a website in terminal decline, how serious should I be? If I were serious, I’d be more akin to J Richards. Fact remains that that man is an ueber-troll of the worst sort. You can find thousands of people just like him on any number of blogs and forums where they carpet-bomb everyone with their long lists and figures and stats and charts and everyone who doesn’t go with the “JEWS DID IT” super-narrative becomes their sworn enemy. This is clinical paranoid delusion in action.

JUST LOOK AT THE LIST ABOVE. Has ANYONE at MajorityRichards (MY TERM BY THE WAY!) ever written that way???

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 10, 2012, 10:35 AM | #

GW @11

Anyway, we have an urgent lesson to learn about mutual acceptance, that much is certain.  I have often cited the old socialist rule, “No enemy to the left.”  How useful something like that would be to us.

“Something like that” was done back in 2004 in the form of the New Orleans Protocol.  And the results for the non-Movement of the NOP cartel agreement have been catastrophic.  Cronyism was enshrined as the dominant collective leadership model.  In due course this produced the A3P. 

Participatory processes there have been so suppressed that Merlin Miller was recently announced by press release as the A3P Presidential candidate.  In its operations A3P far exceeds anything ever achieved by the NSDAP or CPSU in backroom totalitarian centralization.

Left unadvertised by NOP was the mutual backscratching link-back policy.  This was the practical method adopted by the CMS and its minions to obtain dominant influence over the Internet White Literary non-Movement’s direction. 

William Luther Pierce, for all of his numerous failings and weaknesses, was at least alert to the imperative need to focus recruiting in the younger demographic groups. 

What we got after him was the “Day of the Geezer Cronies” in their virtual gated retirement community. This group failed to stand “above” or outside anything to provide distinctive leadership.  What they did do was isolate themselves from virtually any potential adherents.  And to the extent they did diagnose “what was happening now” in our lands during the 00’s, they gladly greeted a great deal of it as viewed through their 3D Rose colored Libertarian Austrian School glasses.

learn about mutual acceptance

Mutual acceptance of what?  J. Richards has many valid points about the signal to noise ratio.  Haller was allowed to become so overbearing that once I nearly proposed M-R change its name to “Leon Haller’s Judeo-Austrian Economics Blog”.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 10:36 AM | #

@J Richards

Do you know what Stalin did to Leon Trotsky? That’s a cue to yet another solution to the Haller’s Problem: Drive the ice-pick through the skull of that son of a bitch.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 10:38 AM | #

What do you think of Richards as a literary character?

But he already exists in literary form.

His name is O’Brien.

Or perhaps more appropriately he is I. Bismuth — persecuting the entire world which very obnoxiously refuses to conform to his simplistic delusion of “Juden”, “Money Power”.

Again: It is highly telling that the toady troll Ivan placed the Richards Bot and Stalin in the same list. Stalin is notorious for his paranoid bouts. So was Hitler, in fact.

But the Bot has a documented history of paranoid meltdowns here and elsewhere. That is what everyone needs to bear in mind.

Strange thoughts, I know. But I;m almost starting to wonder whether JR is playing an elaborate joke of some kind (I know Ivan tries to do this; his comments are perfectly predictable in their attempts to stir up animosities and weird digressions).

True. I normally stay away from accusations of that sort, knowing that white nationalists are constitutionally paranoid lot, but as my comment above makes clear, he seems to be a genuine provocateur ... and if he believes what he says, all the worse for us that he found his way here. He used to be reasonable, remember? There was no paranoia, no smug word-games and posing back then. Suddenly with the assumption of the Little Dictator Who Needs Freedom to Enforce Unfreedom he is a hopping-mad little toady who enjoys persecuting people for fictitious allegiances.

I hope it is a joke. ‘Twould be an enormously funny stint.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 10:42 AM | #

@uh

Have not you left MR for good? Noooo ... I didn’t think so. Btw, did I mention this: you owe dc and MOB an apology. I repeat, please be polite to good people.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 10:43 AM | #

@J Richards

Do you know what Stalin did to Leon Trotsky? That’s a cue to yet another solution to the Haller’s Problem: Drive the ice-pick through the skull of that son of a bitch.

Okaayyyyy .....

I do believe this is the first time one commenter has engaged in homicidal rhetoric about another.

Let this be a lesson to all of you toadies who so eagerly hopped aboard the Richards Bot bandwagon. Here you have one of your clique, or ‘faction’ as the Bot twisted it, suggesting that Richards drive an ice-pick through Leon Haller’s skull.

This is your work, Richards. This was all caused BY YOU, and no one else. Time for you to pack up and go about your earnest bullshit “work” elsewhere.

Whether Ivan’s having a laugh or is serious, I repeat: as far as I am aware, this is new at MajorityRichards.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 10:45 AM | #

THIS IS FUCKING SURREAL.

Btw, did I mention this: you owe dc and MOB an apology. I repeat, please be polite to good people. — “Ivan”

Do you know what Stalin did to Leon Trotsky? That’s a cue to yet another solution to the Haller’s Problem: Drive the ice-pick through the skull of that son of a bitch. — “Ivan”

This anonymous weirdo affects to lecture someone on politeness! Sheesh!

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 10:51 AM | #

Mutual acceptance of what?  J. Richards has many valid points about the signal to noise ratio.  Haller was allowed to become so overbearing that once I nearly proposed M-R change its name to “Leon Haller’s Judeo-Austrian Economics Blog”.

Except Haller doesn’t have admin privileges. He made some over-long commentary that he was rightly requested to stop making.

Except his signal to noise metaphor is ACTUALLY A METAPHOR OF HIS PARANOID DELUSION. ‘Signal’ stands for “J Richards” while noise stands for “Everything else not in agreement with J Richards, or performing precisely to his requirements”.

NOW HERE WE ARE, THE ENTIRE WEBSITE THE MERCY OF ONE MAN’S MANIAS.

If you don’t see anything curious or ‘off’ about this character, I’m afraid you’re as obtuse as he is. And before you lay into me, know this graybeard: I don’t give a fuck.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 11:02 AM | #

@uh

I am here to help you, brother. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over

And, please, be polite with good people.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 11:03 AM | #

Leon,

I now perceive, in a way that I hadn’t really thought of in the past, that this is an excellent background for debunking conspiracist nonsense without allowing oneself to get sucked into their game of having to waste enormous amounts of time disproving each little piece of their ‘evidence’.

In other words, the grandiosity of the allegations raises a completely unattainable burden of disproof. In other words, this paranoid, deluded individual raises the burden of disproof so high that one would have to spend a comparable amount of time and energy in combating his delusional worldview, despite the simplicity of its criteria: “Juden”, “Money Supply”.

If you’d like a quick study in this mindset, check out Helvena’s blog, linked above. She is a repeatable type: the shady northern woman who wastes all of her time documenting at great length every deal, handshake, pay-off, merger, etc. etc., trying to prove ... that Jews are virulent and use civilization against us.

Some blogger called ‘niqnaq’ is mentioned above, and he’s another one of this type — whom Helvena and Guessedworker both read.

All I am doing here is trying to delineate a psychological type which gravitates to and practices information flooding because they believe it ‘proves’ something more than what Svigor and Tanstaafl can say in a single sentence: and that is the m.o. of a very seriously paranoid individual who has the time and energy to burn up that way.

I agree that Graham has been quite funny throughout. This nonsense makes me miss his pot-shots at ‘Americans’!

What’s funny-saddest about all of this is that no one here has ever seriously questioned that Jews control the money supply, or a very large portion of it, and certainly that Jews are a hostile subspecies among us. This is meaningless to the Bot and his toadies — who are better served mentally just by writing off everyone who doesn’t obsess over 9/11 (not one is an engineer or any other profession relevant to the matter) or whatever it be as JEWS, JEWS, JEWS, CONTROLLED OPPOSITION!!

Paranoid cunts that they are, they don’t see the awful irony of this in its resemblance to real Jews, like me of course, shrieking about ANTI-SEMITES!!! everywhere they encounter opposition or dissent.

Posted by FB on February 10, 2012, 11:10 AM | #

Uh, why do you bother with MR so much? Like some marriages, this blog has run its course. I now read Hunter Wallace’s excellently blog every day. I hope he remains its unique author. MR was supposed to produce a new ideological paradigm for Europeans to replace liberalism. It’s been what 7 years now? Did GW produce this new paradigm (yawn)? No. We’re back to a variant of National Socialism. I always thought it was just a gimmick anyways. The place has deteriorated to the point where a paranoid lunatic or agent provocateur ( it makes no difference which ) presides over its final death spiral downwards. Time to move on.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 11:12 AM | #

I am here to help you, brother. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over

And, please, be polite with good people.

Your breezy pretense of enjoying the moral high ground is specious. I will remind everyone of Ivan’s comment of 10:36 —

@J Richards

Do you know what Stalin did to Leon Trotsky? That’s a cue to yet another solution to the Haller’s Problem: Drive the ice-pick through the skull of that son of a bitch.

You advocate driving an ice-pick through Leon Haller’s head, and you call yourself an advocate of white nationalism? This is THE FIRST TIME, ANYONE has called for the detailed physical death of another commenter.

Do not fucking affect to preach to me you anonymous little shitbag. I will run you into the fucking dirt here or in person. Bring your ice-pick hither and see where it lands.

A quick note to the nobody old childless crone “MOB”: You are allied now to “Ivan”. How will you proceed? I shall be most eager to discover how another childless Mensan wriggles out of having associated with a man who is comfortable calling for the death of another commenter. Don’t think anyone of “my” faction is fooled by your little smokescreen above, whatever it’s supposed to mean. You have no right to call for the banning of anyone, because you are nothing, and this website, for the moment, enjoys the rule of free speech. So go try to persecute somewhere else, twat. Or go cry into your weekend bottle of wine in the bubble-bath, or whatever it is you barren crones do when you’re not imagining yourself superior to all mankind for SOLVING PUZZLES. lozozozozozozozozozoz

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 11:21 AM | #

Uh, why do you bother with MR so much?

I know, I know. Others, in real life even, have broken my balls for it.

I hope he remains its unique author. MR was supposed to produce a new ideological paradigm for Europeans to replace liberalism. It’s been what 7 years now? Did GW produce this new paradigm (yawn)?

Yea. Well, I left the stable criticizing that conceit. I really think what Wandrin/anon/HBDChick have been going on about — genetic relatedness — is the final explanation for all of this. There can be no fiat-paradigm.

The place has deteriorated to the point where a paranoid lunatic or agent provocateur ( it makes no difference which ) presides over its final death spiral downwards. Time to move on.

::exhales::  All right then. I appreciate your time-out.

Agreed re OccidentalDissent. Best blog going. His “You Live in An America That ... ” post was classic and ought to be wheat-pasted everywhere. Funny thing about it is the comments are more naturally stringent; if you don’t have a provable point and are just looking to ham, you will not find many willing to entertain you.

Posted by uh on February 10, 2012, 11:22 AM | #

Crappinchaos,

If Richards does not understand this then he needs to open his eyes.  Unless, that is, Richards is simply too good for this world.

Finally. Thanks man.

Aiiiiight, this shit has stolen enough of my life! later for realz bro’skis

Posted by Gug on February 10, 2012, 11:23 AM | #

The fake fights between trolls at MR are insightful, for those who can see.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 11:23 AM | #

@uh

You are not bright enough to be a Jew. But if you are, the Jews should denounce you as an embarrassment to the tribe.

Having said that, you certainly do exhibit all other Jewish traits - hutzpah and mouth-foaming hysteria being not the last ones.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 11:27 AM | #

@FB

Hey, Friedrich “de German” Brawn. Welcome back, bro!

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 11:30 AM | #

Richards@39

I weary of JRichards. I have long been weary of him. I should respond to this long attack, but I’m bored. I read this whole goddam thread. Basically, what a waste of my time!

I want to talk about substantive issues. White Zion, eg, is a substantive issue. You (some or all) may totally disagree with it as a suggestion, but its underlying premises - that whites may in a few decades find themselves minorities in all traditional white lands, and that white perpetuity may thus depend upon some kind of WN ingathering, whose goal is to achieve territorial racial sovereignty through demographic conquest via immigration - are not in the least prima facie implausible. The concept of White Zion precisely fits within GW’s criterion of wanting MR contributors to think creatively about our racial predicament.

What Richards does is deflect the conversation into unproductive, if not bizarre and embarrassing, channels - and then get peeved when some of us don’t wish to follow him there. JR is unable to assimilate the thought that, even if he’s right about 9-11 (something not proven, and most unlikely), the decline and fall of the West is a very large topic, encompassing many elements beyond Jewry. Maybe some of us would like to explore those other issues? It is JR’s opinion that the JQ is the most important issue. It certainly isn’t mine.

Shiite. I don’t even want to finish my thought. The topic of JR just isn’t very interesting, let alone fun.

What I said @3 was completely true. I NEVER saw that Kitson post. Moreover, if the truth be told, I usually skim JR’s comments at best. Just because he states something, he cannot infer that I have read it. Or paid it any attention.

This

Prior to trashing, when the heat turned on Haller, he’s on record for stating that he’d gathered his Austrian School texts and will be reading them to come up with a lengthy response, i.e., this guy’s been promoting things without a clear understanding of what he’s promoting!  All he knows is that it’s good for bankers/Jews.(JR)

is a LIE, and JR knows it.

What I said at one point, on my own initiative, and not as a function of any “challenge” from JR, was that I really needed to write a kind of Introduction to Monetary Theory post, just to set things straight given all the JR money nonsense he’d been bloviating about. I stated that I would bring my Austrian texts from LA to school, as I wouldn’t otherwise have them and would want to refer to them in the course of writing something. JR idiotically uses this as some kind of evidence that I must not understand monetary theory.

Now think about this. Is it improper to want to review various seminal texts before writing a formal post based on them? Isn’t that a sign of intellectual responsibility and integrity (ie, not wanting to misstate or mislead)? I studied mainstream (neoclassical micro + basically Keynesian macro) econ in college, and then read a lot of Austrianism on my own in the late 80s to early/mid 90s. The Austrians resolved various dissatisfactions I’d had with my college courses. I was convinced by Mises, Hayek et al. of their essential doctrinal soundness.

I really haven’t read much foundational Austrianism since the 90s. I keep up with the theory through regular perusal of the Mises Institute website. The monetary writings of the Austrians can get involved. Before writing a money first principles article, I would like to review the material. JR implies that this must mean I have no idea what I’m talking about when criticizing his ‘debt-free money’ proposals (or defending the Austrian approach). Is that conclusion warranted?

Consider the law. In law school we cover a wide array of basic topics: contracts, torts, property, evidence, civ pro, etc. I’ve done very little Uniform Commercial Code stuff, though we did study a lot of it in school (of course, no school studies the whole UCC, just as garnering even a PhD in genetics would not mean that the person knows every last thing there is to be known about genetics). I have some general UCC knowledge, and could offer some general advice re some of its issues. But what do you think a lawyer does if faced with an actual UCC (or any other) case? He reviews the material, code and cases, if any.

This is true for most anything. An historian specializing in WW2 may be able to answer all manner of general and even specific questions about the war. But if he is asked to write the WW2 section of a high school history text, would it be a sign of ignorance if he did not simply write the chapter tout court off the top of his head, but went back to basic sources and reviewed them?

Now, the fact that I would want to reread some stuff before doing a formal post on money, does not mean that I don’t possess a solid general understanding of money, one quite sufficient for my purposes, as well as to perceive the inadequacies of the Richards ‘debt-free money’ preference. Would someone posting on Heidegger not want to at least glance over some relevant texts before doing so? Does doing so imply total ignorance about Heidegger?

If JR really thinks this, then he is revealing his own unsatisfactory educational background.

There is so much more that I could respond to in this rancid comment by Richards, but I have to go. Anyway, perhaps polymathic JR could explain to the masses the economic concept of diminishing marginal returns during my absence.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 11:33 AM | #

@Gug

I’m glad you are enjoing the show, brother. I haven’t had this much fun in a long time. I am in a good mood today

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 11:39 AM | #

@Leon “Trotsky” Haller

Shiite. I don’t even want to finish my thought. The topic of JR just isn’t very interesting, let alone fun.

Are you gonna give up that easily, dick head? Come on, bro! You are another disappointment and embarrassment to us, de Jews.

Posted by Bill on February 10, 2012, 11:42 AM | #

Leon Haller @ 64

Bill @7

Bill,

This is a real question from me. Do you find my comment @3 “overly-intellectualising”, or otherwise unintelligible?

I’ve just lost another two hours worth of comment answering your question.  I can’t go through that again.  Sorry!

As we say over here, the second cup (of tea) never tastes the same as the first.

As a consolation…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdd07SDHv5Q

BTW.  The answer was, no I didn’t.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 11:51 AM | #

I’ve just lost another two hours worth of comment answering your question.  I can’t go through that again.  Sorry! (Bill)

What happened, Bill? I don’t see anything lengthy from you.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 11:53 AM | #

@uh

Your breezy pretense of enjoying the moral high ground is specious.

There is no doubt about that - I do enjoy the moral high ground, and rightly so. I am a Circassian, uh, and you are a Jew. As an extra bonus, I’m having the fun of my life at your expense.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 11:55 AM | #

Uh,

You may have missed this from the communitarian thread (I had something to Lister, too, that may now not get seen).

Uh,

I hope you don’t leave. I enjoy your posts, even if I wish sometimes you would lay things out a little more fully and systematically (you can’t expect all your readers to catch every allusion, nuance, neologism, etc). Some (usually the dumber commenters) have complained about my excessive comment length, but if I do so it is to lay out a position properly and understandably, esp for the benefit of newcomers (to MR or just the thread). Your posts are sometimes too scattershot to have the maximum effect they could have.

But don’t let Richards push you away. The reason I like MR is 1) until Richards appeared, I wasn’t banned (as I’ve been at so many other sites); 2) there are some interesting and bright people here (like you - and so many others pre-summer 2011 -persons like Trainspotter, Notus Wind, scrooby, Grimoire, wandrin, Gudmund, Dasein, Sam Davidson, Armor, CS, Thorn, Dan Dare, and many others now mostly AWOL - only a handful of decent people still hang out here, I suspect because of Richards and his petty, pedantic tyranny); 3) I like the ability to post in real time (the day waiting for moderating at places like AR really ruins the possibility of interesting conversations); finally, I just happen to like the simple, but readable and effective graphic design.

Anyway, it would be sad if, as you or someone else has said, Majority Rights becomes Majority Richards.

“Majority Richards” - brilliant!

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 12:08 PM | #

Don’t worry about uh leaving MR, folks. This leech has “left” MR many times in the past. He is weak, he has no will power, he is a coward - in a word, he is a Jew. The Jews have this unique trait - they have to have the last word in the dispute. They can’t help it. Haller can’t help it, Dr Lister can’t help it, uh can’t help. He’ll be back giving me the pleasure of driving his hysteria to the boiling point.

He is weak, he has no will power, he is a coward - in a word, he is a Jew.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 12:18 PM | #

In chess the move is called fork: either I drive uh out of the MR temple for good, or he comes back crawling on his knees like a dog he is, only to give me the satisfaction of whipping his ass again and again. In either case I win. I can’t lose for I am a lone sniper, a straight shooter, an honest man - I am a Circassian.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 12:23 PM | #

Leon -  yeah I am working on an essay about judgemental rationality amongst other things. Like everything worthwhile it does take time and effort.

As for the debunking well two things really; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and inference to the best explanation. Take the unfortunately large number of your fellow citizens that claim to have been visited by aliens. Given what we do know about the world what is likely to be the best explanation: (i) the person claiming such an encounter is in some way mistaken, perhaps they are lonely and want attention or whatever; or (ii) aliens really did visit in the night? Our inference to the best explanation, on the balance of probabilities leads us to the first interpretation of events. But there is a subtly involved. The person might just have been visited by ET, but given the lack of other witnesses, substantive physical evidence etc., to that effect we would still, on the grounds of judgemental rationality, be right to make our call the other way as we must consider all the publicly available evidence. Testimonies can be a form of public evidence, but are not always the strongest form of evidence, as any criminal lawyer would admit they would rather have good DNA evidence for the prosecution than only a muddled or hazy eyewitness account.

OK so I quoted the the very distinguished biologist Cavalli-Sforza earlier in the comments.

Coincidently when I googled his name the second hit was a VDARE page about how ‘dumb’ he is?

Please middle-America drop the pseudo-democratic nonsense of everyone’s opinion being equally ‘valid’ on every possible subject – it’s simply not true. A heart surgeon has more knowledge of surgery than I do. I can admit to ignorance…really it doesn’t make someone a bad person, as everyone is by definition ignorant about most things – admittedly some more than others. There is more knowledge in the world than anyone can fully and completely master. But one should not celebrate willful ignorance either.

Which neatly brings me back to that Cavalli-Sforza quote and Mr. Richards. If we are maximally kind to him he is attempting to build a model of reality or some aspect of it. So at a first attempt he sweeps up a number of heterogeneous processes/phenomena into a single diagnostic – but in loading it with explanatory weight it bends and snaps. So we are in the first part of the Cavalli-Sforza process – we build a model and stress test it to failure to understand what we don’t know, or what needs additional investigation and conceptual clarification. So we go into the second phase of the process by building a more complete, sophisticated and robust model that can bear more explanatory weight than the crude ‘guess in the dark’ model could take.

Only we hit a problem – some people are very attached to the first model – they genuinely don’t notice its faults, or they willfully rationalise them away, or for other reasons such as the emotional and psychological comfort the model gives them they very stubbornly refuse to give it up or even resent others suggesting that it may be inadequate both on empirical and conceptual grounds. Hence our ‘issue’.

P.S. Thanks for the kind words Leon – which have not always been the case on either side – but I also wanted to say Richards did behave in a disgraceful way toward you on my communitarian thread. He and his giggling know-nothings played the POMO card and you humiliated them in their ignorance but you also stood up for intellectual honesty and depth, which I thank you for. But I can still scream ‘Hayek’ if you force me into it!

Yeah my style could be better at times but overly simple language can also distort ideas. As in most things trade-offs inevitably occur.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 01:10 PM | #

Yeah I thought the whole signal-to-noise ratio shit is typical Ickism – use a real scientific concept in a pseudo-scientific way. That is Richards is the signal – the all-knowing signal – and we are the J-noise blocking his wisdom - delusional BS. But if his stance was so strong should it not be robust to the ‘enemy’ anyways?

@Ivan - you’re a pathetic fuckwit – so much so you probably couldn’t find your own arse with either of your hands on a consistent basis. You contributions are of a nugatory nature – and no that’s not a sweetie (or candy in American).

BTW where is the ‘in despair’ dc (aka Prof. Logic) - crying over some set-theoretical paradox?

Look we all want a maximally understood free-speech zone except the funny-hat wearer in chief - but it must be a somewhat rationally grounded one also.

Isn’t there the political amoeba’s site (Linder) or other costume-politics sights for the investigation of the Icke-Richards conjecture in never-ending length?

Why oh why is it pivotal to European history that Majority Rights becomes Majority Richards? Seriously why not let the free debate go on, if anyone psychologically needs an echo-chamber are there not many other possible places? Kai Murros can even add wonderful fashion tips and warmed-over fascism to his exciting mix of BS.

I mean the idea that the echo-chamber lot will actually do anything that GW suggested MR is all about - think creatively or add depth and scope - asymptotically approaches zero.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 02:23 PM | #

@Ivan - you’re a pathetic fuckwit - so much so you probably couldn’t find your own arse with either of your hands on a consistent basis. You contributions are of a nugatory nature - and no that’s not a sweetie (or candy in American).

That’s much better. Professor is showing his real colors. Can you imagine J Richards resorting to this kind of foul language, no matter how much he gets abused by these rats? Never. And there is a simple explanation for that - J Richards is right, and he knows that he is right. He will carry on his sermons with saintly patience trying to talk sense to these bastards.

The most difficult part of dealing with these Jewish “intellectuals” is forcing them out into the open from their
tortoise shells of pseudoscientific logorrhea. After that you can scoop them wholesale like helpless shrimps.

Good doctor is out in the open now with his arse naked and wide open for abuse by everyone who is not disgusted by that kind of activity.

Btw, I have totally missed your intellectual contributions. Could you summarize them for me in few sentences, please?

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 02:39 PM | #

@Leon

I just read the Richards comment no.56

So I ask him to explain his ‘very complex’ methodology for knowing who is ‘controlled opposition’ and the cognitive dissonance was too much for him. He has exposed himself as a paranoid, utterly deluded blow-hard with very little genuine intellectual ability, or indeed any other sort of positive qualities – he’s not even funny or an enjoyable persona in anyway. Exhausting and deflationary sums it up.

He cannot admit to these failings - he has no answer as to what his ‘very complex’ methodology is - so instead he storms off in a fit of pique, in a squalid and vain attempt to take the moral high ground. Case closed people.

GW has attempted to stay loyal to someone he considers a friend – that is noble, but this issue had to come to some sort of resolution (if indeed it has). Let’s hope something positive can emerge from this sorry episode.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 03:02 PM | #

@Ivan

It might be a more interesting exercise to demonstrate your own vivifying efforts.

How is that aversion to foul and abusive language going – in between death threats – obviously, they must be the height of civility in your ‘culture’, yes?

Or perhaps you are attempting a form of satirical buffoonery with your posts? I would suggest you have some way to go to emulate satire. But the buffoonery is developing nicely.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 03:18 PM | #

@Graham_Lister

The list of your contributions, please. No satire, no buffoonery. I really want to see it, will you indulge me.

You can use the template used by J Richards in the current post.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 04:37 PM | #

By the way, why does Søren has this freedom of not only deleting comments, but also exercising absolutely unacceptable practice of editing other’s comments.

Here is the evidence. One of my comments (followed after the one that was deleted by Søren) to Kai Murros garbage looked like this:

From the Protocols of New Elders of Zion:

Billions will die. We, the Jews, will win.

The minutes of the Sanhedrin meeting were taken by it’s secretary Søren.

P. S. Where is my previous comment, asshole. The secretary is getting nervous. That’s a sure sign that my comment was right on target. Told ya: I am a lone sniper, a straight shooter, an honest man - I am a Circassian.

And here is how it looks after Søren’s “creative” editing:

From the Protocols of New Elders of Zion:
“I, Ivan, am a gormless mooncalf. So attested on this nth day of the nth month of 2012.”

Check it out at http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/aquilon_speaks_moscow_2010#comments if you don’t believe me.
How did he get that information? I am a gormless mooncalf, all right, but how did he know that?

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 04:51 PM | #

And here is the original comment axed by Søren.

Pardon my ignorance - who is exactly this Aquilon who speaks?

P. S. Good catch, daniel, you are not as stupid as I thought after all. That’s the guy - Kai Murros - one of the cheerleaders of the “billions will die; we, the Jews, will win” crowd.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 10, 2012, 05:46 PM | #

@Bill #7

Perhaps James Bowery is right, His/the story has been told and has reached its glass ceiling,

James is broadly correct on this.  From time to time reminders of “other ways” are useful when one or another medicine man appears selling Economy Size “If Only I Had Control of A Central Bank & Central Government” snake oil.

what is there left to discuss, it’s 1938 and the seating arrangements have been made.

Dr. Lister recently observed that “social privatization”, agreeably corrected by me to “social atomization”, was a principle problem of our era.  Therefore a deeper inquiry into the specific agencies and instrumentalities actually driving this “social atomization” seems a useful standing activity in the M-R venue.

GT & I actually conducted such an inquiry circa 2004-2007.  This originally began as an investigation into the reasons for the uniform abysmal response to “pro-white political campaigns” in many jurisdictions over many years.  It was intensive, wide ranging and covered a lot functional areas.  The results of this are the reason for our militant atheism regarding the near term prospect of partisan political campaigning in the USA.  And this includes the limited purpose of recruiting like-minded whites.

We also observed the extensive “social atomization” that Dr. Lister commented on.  This social atomization in the USA is so profound at this time that we see no possibility of direct political action in the absence of extensive preparatory work to redevelop a degree of cohesion in white social groups at the neighborhood level.  At the current time the “white community” in any area has the same cohesion as a pile of dry silica sand.

Urgency of need in regard to immigration or anything else is simply irrelevant.  Candidates will be exactly as successful as Neo would have been in The Matrix if he had simply stood up in his ‘tub’ and started shouting in that vast chamber to all the other bodies still connected to the Matrix.  Consequently there is no point for anyone to get frustrated that GT or XPWA can’t ‘see’ the urgency of this or that political policy initiative. 

We do.  We consider it even more urgent than it was to drydock the RMS Titanic at midnight on 14-15 April 1912. We just don’t see the possibility for it. 

Our observations of “what is” and “what is coming” back then led us to the concept of highly localized economic initiatives.  These are designed to foster continuous economic co-dependency among whites.

We can observe that the National Alliance’s non-political economic activities (media publishing and distribution) led to more durable local and regional groups than did any “pro-white political campaign” since Rockwell’s era.  And this is not to deny fundamentally dysfunctional character of the NA.  It simply outlines the blackhole that TV era partisan politics has been for us. 

But it may be other people have ideas beyond ours of how to catalyze this social rebonding at a physical community level.  The good news is that if we ever can achieve this rebonding then we’ll have a decisive advantage over the “Regime”.  It is even weaker and more ephemeral at the street level than we are.

Posted by Grimoire on February 10, 2012, 05:48 PM | #

This site has really become an embarrassment. I see you’ve re-acquired the disease known as Ivan…that’s what happens when you do not practice hygiene. Undoubtedly he will call me a Jew…that has become the upper limit of the intellectual capacity so often bragged about here. You really are a sorry lot.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 06:24 PM | #

@Grimoire

I see you’ve re-acquired the disease known as Ivan ... that’s what happens when you do not practice hygiene. Undoubtedly he will call me a Jew ... that has become the upper limit of the intellectual capacity so often bragged about here.

Yes, Grimoire, practice hygiene - that is exactly what J Richards is trying to do @MR - cleansing Jewish filth, purging leeches, etc. Ivan is kind of immune system improving shot for MR in this process. As of you ... I really don’t have much to say in addition to what I have said in the past; the new comers can check it out here:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/probability_theory_and_survival_of_white_race

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 10, 2012, 06:28 PM | #

@Leon Haller

My #106 is a brief explanation for the “whys” of the microcommunity strategy.  It’s a practical application of the principle of Subsidiarity.  I’m amazed that a nominal graduate student in Catholic theology doesn’t recognize this. 

If you manage to avoid being trash-canned again here at M-R for a few days I’ll give you your 5 point “how”.

In the meantime, how did I “know” you had never physically produced one item for commercial sale?  It was easy.  You talk about economic production with all the apparent experience of Marvin the Martian discussing human sex.

Posted by Grimoire on February 10, 2012, 06:47 PM | #

Thank you Ivan for demonstrating once again you are an obedient bitch.

btw: wasn’t that the article where you demonstrated you were an intellectual fraud and troll?

mmmkay.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 07:24 PM | #

@Grimoire

btw: wasn’t that the article where you demonstrated you were an intellectual fraud and troll?

No, Grimoire, you are confused a bit. That article was another brick in the wall aimed at identifying and separating unclean creatures like yourself from the healthy section of MR and keeping those creatures out.

Posted by Thorn on February 10, 2012, 07:39 PM | #

If Ivan joined GT’s microcommunity, would he be forced to have a vasectomy?

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 07:46 PM | #

@Grimoire

Good to see you back – surely not everyone here is a total embarrassment!

Unfortunately we seem to have Ivan wanting to be the junior Richards bot – every silver lining has a cloud seemingly.

On social atomization – well that’s one of my favourite themes but I’m too tired to seriously go into it. But one thought on this. European nations and the USA are perhaps very differently positioned to deal with such issues.

American is, at the risk of the POMO generator being used, a politico-cultural ‘hybrid zone’. In that amongst the Euro population there are in fact many different ‘nationalities’ – in order to allow these newcomers, beyond the original Anglo-Celtic stock, to easily assimilate the permeability of the boundary conditions to American identity, in socio-cultural terms, has been much lower than in Europe. Essentially American identity is a diachronic phenomenon – stick around long enough and it’s yours – and the symbolic embodiments of American identification are very vague – the flag and the right to chase after happiness etc., all in the context of a maximal, rhetorically and in reality, commitment to individualistic liberty. Not that difficult for Europeans from quite distinct and differentiated cultural milieus to agree upon this minimal core (and agree to keep there own versions of Christianity etc.) then those very abstract concepts become the primary markers of collective identity. But if the barrier is low for different types of Europeans why isn’t it equally low for non-European Americans – why cannot they also sign up to these minimal commitments?

Comparatively, for example, Dutch identity enjoys a much higher barrier to entry if only for linguistic reasons – equally the whole thing of anyone signing up to ‘Dutch values’, I think, does have less saliency than in the American context – the Dutch do not really define themselves by abstract propositions, it’s more a way of being in the world – hard to fully adopt for outsiders. And the Dutch could have a form of ethno-linguistic nationalism which might be implicitly ‘racial’ but is not with a screaming capital R. After all saying “we just want to be Dutch” is a less difficult product/brand to sell than “we just want to be white”. After all saying “we just want to be Americans” is tricky because that runs up against what might be dubbed ‘the John Coltrane’ question. If Coltrane and his music are not authentically American why and how can that distinction be drawn?

Obviously much more could be said on this topic but American identity seems to be far more open and with much less in the way of entry costs.

Posted by Thorn on February 10, 2012, 07:46 PM | #

Ivan…the greatest argument for abortion?

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 10, 2012, 07:54 PM | #

@Thorn…perhaps retrospective abortion instead?

Irony alert Ivan - I don’t really mean it!

Posted by Thorn on February 10, 2012, 08:09 PM | #

Hey Graham, I acually like Ivan. He is entertainment. I want him to stick around.

Posted by Grimoire on February 10, 2012, 08:17 PM | #

@G_Lister:
            I’ve been reading the articles/comments here.  I think Richards is misled and beguiled as to the J question and mono-causality, however his pov is well-meant. However, I agree completely with his attempts to clean up and order this mess and I hope he continues and is more intolerant with idiocy. It’s a disgrace and you all should be embarrassed.

You should put aside your differences and agree to disagree while rationally discussing each others views.

This Ivan fellow should leave now, or tone down his attempts at disruption.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 08:19 PM | #

Hey Thorn, it’s good to know that you have recovered from the thrashing few months back. I was a bit harsh on you back then, please forgive me if you can.

Posted by Thorn on February 10, 2012, 08:28 PM | #

Hey Thorn, it’s good to know that you have recovered from the thrashing few months back. I was a bit harsh on you back then, please forgive me if you can.

LOL!

Oh Yes ,just as you thrashed Grimoire and and all the others that laugh at you.

Get real!

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2012, 08:29 PM | #

Obviously much more could be said on this topic but American identity seems to be far more open and with much less in the way of entry costs.

My observation would be that the ease with which new Americans can be minted from often quite unpreposessing material, and the ready accessibility for newcomers to the ‘American Dream’, have historically been a source of pride and a prime mover of American exceptionalism.

Certainly no such feeling exists within the general public in any European country, nor even in the other white settler countries which have officially abandoned their ethnically-selective immigration regimes. Even though many other countries have attempted to promote a ‘Melting Pot’ or ‘Salad Bowl’ model for society, nowhere else other than the United States has it been generally embraced as a public good.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 08:35 PM | #

@Grimoire

This Ivan fellow should leave now

I’m sorry Grimoire, can’t do it: my work is not done here yet. Too much filth has accumulated @MR in my absence. Besides, Thorn wants me to stay - he likes me and he enjoys the thrashing. I can’t disappoint him. I promise, you’ll get used to my thrashing of your arse too, and actually start enjoying it.

Posted by Thorn on February 10, 2012, 08:57 PM | #

I can’t disappoint him. I promise, you’ll get used to my thrashing of your arse too, and actually start enjoying it.

So, Ivan admits he is a homosexual.

No surprise there!

Posted by Grimoire on February 10, 2012, 09:08 PM | #

@D Dare:
            We all know the ‘melting pot’ policy has been imposed by the oligarchy via the left as a result of the holocaust meme. There is no reason to point a finger specifically at America, or Britain as a culprit, source or origin of the problem.

@Ivan:
        I do not enjoy the thought of human refuse such as yourself licking asses with the words from your tongue. I have no use for your type Ivan - you are a dog, not a man. You are a known troll of nationalist forums and it is known you work for the metsada operation for a pathetic indemnity. You are inept at your job, and I imagine you are paid very poorly and are at the lowest level for that reason.

If you really are a muslim, and not an israeli, the degree of your personal abasement and utter degradation as a human being takes a lot to truly comprehend. I feel sorry beyond consideration for any human in your situation… and I consider you one of the damned. You are here because you seek humiliation… and that is all you have to offer.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2012, 09:23 PM | #

No, Grimoire, in the United States the ‘Melting Pot’ trope far predates the H. I’m surprised you would commit such an elementary howler.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 09:44 PM | #

This is getting funny ...

Did you catch this comment from Ivan:

@Grimoire

Yes, Grimoire, practice hygiene - that is exactly what J Richards is trying to do @MR - cleansing Jewish filth, purging leeches, etc. Ivan is kind of immune system improving shot for MR in this process. As of you ... I really don’t have much to say in addition to what I have said in the past; the new comers can check it out here:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/probability_theory_and_survival_of_white_race

For anyone interested in the Ivan Problem, I do encourage you to click on this link. Read Ivan’s essay, then my critique at #3. In a nutshell, Ivan is a very poor excuse for a systematic thinker.

That said, there are some interesting tidbits among the comments that do bear copying here (or anyway, I cannot resist doing so): 

Posted by Leon Haller on May 16, 2011, 06:35 AM | #

Your ethics, Leon, is not the same as that of GW’s. You called upon GW to ban me from these discussion forums numerous times. But GW, even though he did not protect me in his house from the pack of jewish hyenas attacking me, as a Circassian would, but he didn’t kick me out from his house; he warned me: you are on your own now, and you better be prepared to defend yourself. That’s gentleman’s ethics, Leon. You do not have it, and you never will. (Ivan)

Ivan,

I cannot decide whether you are mentally disturbed, a Zionist plant as Grimoire has alleged, or simply a pitch perfect example of the difficulties of cross-cultural communication. I really cannot believe that you are serious in what you write or in how you express yourself.

What I do know is that I set out above, with my customary clarity, what was inadequate about your post. You have not addressed my criticism because, assuming you are genuine and not a troll or site-saboteur, your mind does not work in the logical, Western way that mine does, and thus you probably do not even recognize its validity.

You do not belong here at MR because you employ senseless ad hominems (eg, the “jew-crew”, when none of us is in fact Jewish), and refuse to engage in (or are cognitively incapable of doing so) the serious discussions at least some of us are trying to have. The survival of the white race is a very large topic, implicating an array of disparate disciplines. There is plenty of room for real disagreements among dedicated race patriots. It is obvious to me, and ought to be to GW, who the sober discussants are, and who are the plants, troublemakers, and retards.

In my opinion MR would be more effective in advancing the agenda of developing an intellectually persuasive account of our troubles, and how to overcome them, if GW were to exercise a heavier editorial policy, one that would exclude the likes of you. But that is his decision.

And as for this

you are on your own now, and you better be prepared to defend yourself

I exist on an intellectual (and, it is now perfectly obvious, cognitive) level so far above your Jewish obsessions and pathetic displays of college math major prowess that acknowledging you (or similar others) is simply wasting valuable time and mental resources. My real intellectual work on behalf of white survival is infinitely more valuable than most of the mental belches emanating from WNs precisely because it is not geared towards ‘preaching to the choir’, but rather, it seeks to enlarge that ‘choir’. I must be more disciplined in avoiding dialogues with fools.

Despite my dislike for many commenters, Ivan is the one person I really do believe ought to be disallowed. I suppose it takes some measure of intellectual or even literary sensitivity to recognize this, but he is truly a ‘troll’. For the record, I don’t think JRichards is a troll. He may be a deluded, paranoid, and generally unpleasant fellow, but I believe he is serious in his presentations (which itself is a disturbing commentary on the human condition: specifically, that intelligence and sanity can be distressingly unrelated). Ivan, on the other hand, does not even try to advance the debates. He merely endeavors to locate points of maximal conversational ‘derailment’, which he then presses predictably and relentlessly. 

The real gem from Ivan’s thread, however, is this from the R-Bot:

Posted by J Richards on May 16, 2011, 03:22 AM | #

Markov chain?

[nb -in reference to a problem set forth by Philosopher King - another good man we’ve lost, and whom I wish would return - LH]

A Markov chain model is a bad one because in such a system the future and past are independent, whereas a moment of epiphany, summed up here, results from cumulative experiences.

A better approach for probability calculations regarding awareness of the ethnics is a Monte Carlo estimation because we’re dealing with a lot of uncertainties.

I’ll illustrate with two broad series of events, starting with the 1980s.

The first series of events roughly started with the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, a major economic recession caused by the bankers.  This prompted a sharp upsurge in white militias.  If these militias took significant control they could educate a large chunk of the population about the ethnics in a very short time.  The ethnics addressed this development via infiltration and false flag operations, the grand finale of which was the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma.  They managed to recruit Timothy McVeigh, a patsy, to park a truck full of a fertilizer bomb outside the building.  When this bomb went off so did the military grade explosives that had been placed inside the Murrah building.  The fertilizer bomb by itself would cause little damage and scare some people.  But with 169 people dead and the building looking like it was sitting in the middle of a war zone,  the militia movement was dealt a devastating blow from which it never recovered.

The second series of events starts from another development around the time the Oklahoma bombing took place, and this was the public availability of the internet, a game-changing event that has played a very significant role in educating millions about the ethnics.  The transition form Web 1.0 (early internet) to Web 2.0 (e.g., the interactive MR.com), advancement in open source software, cheaper computers, faster internet, cheaper video cameras, the upcoming html5 and css3 standards, etc. correspond to a progressive improvement in the potential to educate others about the ethnics.  But, the ethnics haven’t idly sat by and can count some victories.  One example is Wikipedia, whereby they were able to leverage millions of dollars in donations and harness, for free, the effort of hundreds of thousands of volunteers to set up the single largest repository of information know to humankind.  Naturally, the crucial pages—9/11, Holocaust, etc.—are locked for editing, allowing them to maintain a major presence of their propaganda on the internet as Wikipedia pages show up on the first page of results in search engines.  Another victory includes the acquisition of youtube by google, which has cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, but this is justifiable compared to the devastation that a viral video about the ethnics could cause.  Wikileaks has also served its purpose for the ethnics, and so on.

What’s next?  A false flag operation that recovers much lost ground for the ethnics, or will it expose them even more?  A devastating economic crash that facilitates further power grab by the ethnics or one that proves to be their undoing?...

… a lot of uncertainties, which is why you need a Monte Carlo simulation of probabilities.

There is little need for comment (not: I do share the recognition of the leftist bias of Wiki, esp re JQ issues).

Posted by Grimoire on February 10, 2012, 09:46 PM | #

ah Dan it came from the same source as the H, and had no currency till the H myth. I’m surprised you don’t have the sense to reason that out yourself Dan.

What do you want to say with your aspersion on white America…spell it out for me Dan.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 09:50 PM | #

There is little need for comment (not: I do share the recognition of the leftist bias of Wiki, esp re JQ issues). (Haller)

I meant to say “note”. Sorry.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 09:51 PM | #

@Grimoire

You are a known troll of nationalist forums and it is known you work for the metsada operation for a pathetic indemnity.

Dammit! Who told you that? No one supposed to know that.

@Graham_Lister

Pardon my incommodious reminder professor, but I’m eagerly awaiting the list of your intellectual contributions.

Posted by Grimoire on February 10, 2012, 10:15 PM | #

@ Ivan
        I see you’ve set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public again.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 10, 2012, 10:17 PM | #

r.e. “Melting Pot”

Factually it was the fabrication of a Zionist Jew originating in England at the peak of the British Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zangwill

Wikipedia has its uses.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 10:22 PM | #

@Haller

Despite my dislike for many commenters, Ivan is the one person I really do believe ought to be disallowed.

Thank you Leon, that’s the highest possible recognition of the importance of that unpleasant janitorial work I have volunteered to do for MR thanks to the goodness of my heart.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 10, 2012, 10:28 PM | #

Re “Melting Pot”: for once, Wiki is useful and accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot

Dan Dare is correct that MP was not originated in response to the Holocaust. I know something of US immigration history, having read many books, and written several papers, on the subject. The idea informing the metaphor goes back a long way in American letters, but the specific term was popularized by Israel Zangwill’s (no points for guessing ethnicity) 1908 play of that name. There was a long rhetorical sub-tradition in America of writers extolling: America as a land of new beginnings, the possibility and reality of discarding prior (cultural) attachments, and America as a new type of, as well as new, nation.

Grimoire is more accurate, however, in his implication that this type of rhetorical horseshit was never the dominant mode of the nation’s self-understanding until after the ethno-homogenizing trauma of WW2 mass military mobilization (with lots of attendant, New/Jew Deal propaganda - nb: the Nazis employed a similar nationalist propaganda to break down German sub-ethnic or regional attachments in order to foster common loyalty to the central German State; you see this process clearly being played out in, eg, The Triumph of the Will), followed by the post-Holocaust Jewish moral (and concurrent mass media) ascendancy. Yes, a few writers and intellectuals in the US past indulged in sentimental interethnic-utopian imagery. But always the vast majority of Americans, at least pre-20th century, saw themselves as either literally transplanted Englishmen, or as having become themselves (cultural) Anglo-Americans (in the case of white immigrants after the first generation; eg, my maternal grandmother, who grew up in a German immigrant home, but who herself was as Middle American as it is possible to imagine).[For the record, all my other ancestral lines date from the 18th century or possibly earlier.]

It was really early twentieth century Jewry which pushed the MP trope into American public consciousness. And even then, white Americans understood that image to refer to whites-only (similarly, only Jews in the post-1900, pre-WW2 era tried to extend the MP image to non-whites, and there was no evidence of their having been successful in so changing white attitudes; actually, the 1920s saw a huge nativist backlash against MP propaganda and immigration).

The development of modern MP ideology was a function of liberal New Deal ideology and propaganda, augmented and cemented by the Holocaust narrative (and then later challenged from the Left by multiculturalism, which wonders why non-whites should be expected to have to assimilate culturally to white norms). Cowardly ‘conservatives’ of today extol MP mainly as an ex post facto response to the reality of the post-1965 Third World immigration invasion/colonization of the US.

The whole history, rhetorical and real, makes me sick, of course.

Posted by Ivan on February 10, 2012, 10:49 PM | #

@Haller

Ivan, on the other hand, does not even try to advance the debates. He merely endeavors to locate points of maximal conversational ‘derailment’, which he then presses predictably and relentlessly.

Thank you Leon, but you are forgetting the nature of the duties I have volunteered for: I am the Orkin man - the exterminator, so to speak. I am not supposed to engage in debates with my subjects. That would be a gross violation of business rules of the trade which would render my work absolutely inefficient.

Posted by Grimoire on February 11, 2012, 12:12 AM | #

must suck to be you

Posted by Dan Dare on February 11, 2012, 01:21 AM | #

Dearest Grimbo - making an observation is not necessarily the same as casting an aspersion, as I’m certain you will agree. The point behind my remarks, which should be entirely uncontroversial, was that the general attitude towards incomers was and still remains, for the most part, welcoming in the United States but antagonistic elsewhere within the Eurosphere.

Most Americans, of whatever provenance, seem quite happy to consider themselves as members of a Nation of Immigrants, a notion which is strenously rejected elsewhere.

Posted by Grimoire on February 11, 2012, 05:04 AM | #

since you put it like that Dan, by this I mean with your customary panache and inestimable flair, I believe you may have something there…

Posted by Thorn on February 11, 2012, 09:40 AM | #

“[y]ou are forgetting the nature of the duties I have volunteered for: I am the Orkin man…”

Is it not humorous that the invasive pest, Ivan, claims to be MR’s “exterminator”?

Will Ivan drink his own pesticide?

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 11, 2012, 11:25 AM | #

r.e. Melting Pot

Until the advent of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Jews in 1933 the USA was considered to be rooted in NW European genetics originating in lands adjacent to the North Sea and the Baltic.  It was not only Eastern European Jews who were considered racially undesirable.  All South Europeans fell into this category.  For 150 years there were sharp limits to who was considered suitable for alloying into assimilated “Americans”. 

American ‘white’ politics even today are subject to the same racial-genetic dynamics and divisions as Europe.  This only looks foggier to due a differing geographic dispersion. 

For general information, the ‘white’ component of the modern USA Democratic Party is disproportionately composed of those “whites” descended from immigrants originating in the Euro PIIGS states, plus Jews.  It’s not far wrong to say the Democratic Party majority is composed of everyone the early 20th Century immigration restrictions sought to exclude.

otoh the Republican Party’s real base is overwhelmingly composed of German and Great Britain origin “whites”, plus Baltic area immigrants mentioned.

There is no generic mass “white American” public to appeal to.  Anyone who still imagines there is has not been paying attention.  The USA is a multi-racial empire, period.  And its true rulers do not consider themselves limited by the borders printed on geography class maps.  “Canada” is just as integral a part of their empire as the continental 48.  And so is Israel.  The ostensible border functions just like an internal fence in a cattle feed lot. 

Posted by Leon Haller on February 11, 2012, 11:50 AM | #

Only partial credit, XPWA. PIIGS analogy appropriate for early to mid-20C, not really so much anymore. The WASP NE Yankees have gone over to the Left big-time. Italians and other non-Jewish white ethnics are much more like other whites today. In my experience, blondes in big cities are more likely to be liberals than less Nordic whites (except Jews).

The white portion of the Democrats is largely composed of rootless liberal ideologues, public sector “workers” (esp the unionized), gays and Jews (lots of overlap there, of course). Specific white ethnicity stopped being politically determinative, even in statistical aggregates, decades ago. There have been books written about this.

There absolutely is such a thing as generic “White America”, and its consciousness is growing by the day. Right now its major political manifestation is the Tea Party Constitutionalists. In the 2020s it will be “white rights” and Middle American activism. It won’t be enough to save America, even as a civilized society (real America - White America - is gone, of course, as a functioning majority and/or dominant culture). What was once simply “America” (which was white) is now “White America”, understood as one ‘community’ within the polyglot empire. That community is what an American nationalist politics seeks to advance and protect.

Our work is just beginning.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 11, 2012, 12:00 PM | #

But one thought on this. European nations and the USA are perhaps very differently positioned to deal with such issues.

This is a certitude.  That’s because such a comparison does not match like objects.  The USA is not a “nation”.  It’s no longer even a “nation state” with a definable racial-linguistic core.  The modern analog to the “USA” is not England, Holland or Germany.  And this is still true even when these Euro states are considered with their heavy non-white immigrant inflows. 

The only proper comparison to the USA is the core European Union that also uses the “euro” of the European Central Bank.  i.e. Ben Bernanke does not deal with the head of the Banque de France as a peer.  He deals with the ECB in Frankfurt. 

You can only compare sub-regions of the USA to various smaller European nation-state divisions.  Northern Ohio shares many features (and genes) with northern Germany and Poland.  Similarly Western Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota have a lot in common with Norway, Sweden and Finland.  This includes trees, fish species and human descendants.

And of course other large USA sub-regions have to be compared to Southern Italy, Sicily, the mega slums of Mexico City; Lagos, Nigeria; the suburbs of Tehran and Tel Aviv.

Can anyone here cite even one (1) serious “European nationalist” who believes a common anti-immigrant EU policy is possible in Brussels?  This is the effective position of the generic American nationalist.  But this is also a species who have not won any elections since the early 1960s at latest.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 11, 2012, 12:08 PM | #

Can anyone here cite even one (1) serious “European nationalist” who believes a common anti-immigrant EU policy is possible in Brussels?  This is the effective position of the generic American nationalist.

That had been my only hope for something positive from the EU. They have a common (pro) immigrant policy; why not anti-?

Anyway, America is a civic nation-state, which does have Federal immigration law. So we could have an immigration moratorium, and might, if only the politicians weren’t so cowardly.

Posted by RKU on February 11, 2012, 02:01 PM | #

A very useful post.  I’d only been aware of fewer than a dozen of those 9/11 datapoints, and having all the additional ones conveniently grouped together is quite helpful, even though I certainly don’t have time to investigate any of them.

Given the important and sensitive nature of the topic, it’s hardly surprising that the result was a vast outpouring of empty verbiage by obvious trolls, which renders the comment thread itself totally useless.  But none of this really impacts the value of the initial 9/11 incident table, which I’ll certainly try to keep in mind for future reference.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 11, 2012, 02:08 PM | #

America is a civic nation-state, which does have Federal immigration law.

There is a saying in Europe which is starting to apply here;  “An old law is no law”.  Barrack Hussein Obama (another Ivy League self-announced ‘elite’)  is presently demonstrating this with his openly contemptuous flouting of the spirit and letter of whitey’s “Federal immigration law”.

“So we could have an immigration moratorium, and might, if only the politicians weren’t so cowardly.”

There you go again! “...if only I had control of a central government…” Well you don’t have control of one.  And you aren’t going to get control of one through any sort of partisan political activity in the existing structure.  This is the Year 2012.  Peter Brimelow & Friends have now been at it for sixteen years, counting from the year of publication of “Alien Nation”!  What do they have to show for it?

As you said, you have never made anything physical that one other white person would want.  And by your own admission this includes your sperm.  Nor do you know how. 

You are not a producer of any kind.  You are a lawyer.  This is to say you are a merchant in words.  They are your stock in trade.  And they are largely the substance of “political campaigns”.  I say largely because the other components are music and photographic imagery.  All of this is carefully crafted to produce an emotional (not intellectual) effect on the viewers.

I say the time of political campaigns for pro-whites is both past and removed to a remoter future.  This means you and your words are almost as necessary as feet on a fish.  Almost. 

You say your purpose in returning to graduate Catholic theology school is to discover some sort of magical incantation that will rouse the slumbering generic white American beast.  I continuously maintain this spell doesn’t exist.  And there is a vast database of accumulated facts and experience that says I am right.

Posted by J Richards on February 12, 2012, 02:24 AM | #

Lew @59

This is the third time you’ve brought up the Fed (Aldrich or Wilson).  I’ve already explained the issue twice.  Why does it have to be a third time?

You said, “It’s pretty easy to falsify a claim that Jews alone created the Fed by pointing to the basic facts of key White Gentile participation.”  You’re bringing in a straw man.  No one has claimed that the international bankers are all Jews, but Jews are the core of this group.

The circumstances leading to the establishment of the Federal Reserve comprise of a fifth central bank war in America.  Four bank wars preceded this, starting from the British colonies.  Why so many wars?  Because the white founding fathers and patriots were overwhelmingly opposed to money being controlled by international bankers.  Only by ignoring history is it possible to come up with something like key white gentile participation; the “key” part is mostly superficial.  Aldrich was a front man for the international bankers, and his bill didn’t get to see the vote.  The act was established by the Glass–Owen Bill.  Yes, there were corrupt whites, but the driving force behind attempts to control money was non-American and predominantly Jewish.  Now I’ve uploaded the history at MR and you can look at the details: http://www.majorityrights.com/money/american-history

When he slandered counter currents as controlled opposition and cited an atypically weak article by Michael O’Meara as evidence, I pointed out he was cherry picking and misrepresenting a small handful of articles when there are 100s of articles at CC. Again, that was pretty simple. Richards claimed CC was controlled opposition. Part of his evidence was a handful of articles out of 100s. I pointed out that he cherry picked. End of story. His claim about CC was pretty easy to falsify with facts.

Think again,  You didn’t falsify anything.

Aside from the post, I cited a series of articles at Counter Currents on 9/11 and money, an article by Matt Parrott, an article by Michael O’Meara and referred to O’Meara’s treatment of Guillaume Faye vs. how Juergen Graf exposes the nature of Faye.: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120258

You responded by accusing me of cherry picking and the issue of chump change: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120274

  I responded to both claims: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120436

On Cherry picking, I said that Kerry Bolton’s arguments on money are the best they have, and if you could point out good information that counters this disinformation, you may have a point; I added that their 9/11 series sums up their stance toward it, and if they had decent articles that took a very different stance on 911 and I failed to cite them, you may have a point.  I also said that if they had serious criticism of Jewry to offer in contrast to O’Meara’s condemnation of it, you may have a point.

You responded by citing Sexton’s review of Hellstorm as a serious criticism of Jews: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120454

I replied that you’re assertion is incorrect: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120710
In particular, I noted that in the excerpts featured at CC, most of the soldiers/people committing atrocities against the Germans toward the end of and just after WWII aren’t Jews.  I added that the types of the atrocities don’t appear anything unusual as human history attests; the uniqueness is over the extent and age.

I also added that Sexton’s review is about a few related events within a short period, whereas Michael O’Meara’s criticism of those who criticize Jews is broad, lacks substance, includes straw men and has the endorsement of Greg Johnson.

You responded by questioning my reasoning, saying that my “evidence that a person is controlled opposition usually boils down to a person not treating a topic they way you would”: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120734

I replied to this in term of me giving you a sample illustration, not a standard, that I didn’t pass judgment on Thomas Goodrich or J. Sexton, but tied the piece [Sexton’s review of Hellstorm, Goodrich’s book] to the articles posted at Counter-Currents.com in general, seeing no reason to reevaluate my opinion of CC: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c120813

After this, you switched the discussion to the JFK murder: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c121096

And I replied to it: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vdare_and_counter_currents_donations_pitch#c121548

And that was the end of the exchange.  So how have you shown that I’ve frivolously called CC controlled opposition?

You had nothing to counter me on the treatment of two big issues at CC: money and 9/11.  You failed to cite a single article by O’Meara that countered his hit piece on “anti-Semitism,” now even saying that O’Meara’s article was atypically weak when this person exposed himself with it, and his other work, such as the treatment of Faye, corroborates the conclusion.  You accused me of cherry picking, failing to substantiate the charge by citing articles that would suggest otherwise.  And now you even accuse me of misrepresenting some articles from CC, yet you never substantiated anything of the sort when you had the discussion with me.

You need to finish a discussion where it appears, for good, and not bring it up again.

Posted by J Richards on February 12, 2012, 02:36 AM | #

Guessedworker

Are you happy with your decision now to continue to accommodate people hostile to Western interests?  Haven’t they done a fine job above? 

Since the Haller issue started it, notice Haller’s response @89 to my comment/description of the Haller problem @39:

I have long been weary of him. I should respond to this long attack, but I’m bored.
...
There is so much more that I could respond to in this rancid comment by Richards, but I have to go.

Just take a look at how many other comments he left, many on trivial issues when how I’ve described him should be his top priority.

He’s got no response.  He ignores everything, reiterates the utility of a white zion, completely oblivious to the problems with its establishment and sustenance that he’s been asked to address, and accuses me of a lie on the one count where I didn’t link to substantiate Haller’s behavior; I’m glad I had the foresight to provide links to substantiate the other arguments. 

And the lie is allegedly that “he’s on record for stating that he’d gathered his Austrian School texts and will be reading them to come up with a lengthy response, i.e., this guy’s been promoting things without a clear understanding of what he’s promoting.”

He tries to argue I’m lying, not by using a few paragraphs to justify a gold standard or cite evidence for the government controlling the money supply, or citing where he has posted this previously, but he talks about his education and how no matter how well-educated one is, one isn’t expected to know everything.  But Haller’s never been challenged to provide a summary of everything.  If he’s so earnestly promoting the Austrian School, surely he would be able to address some issues regarding a gold standard in his own words or answer some other questions about the fundamental premises of the Austrian School without having to read the books coming from this school.  But he never does. 

On Jan. 16, 2012, I told dc that I’d be getting rid of Haller as he had violated a final warning to not promote Austrian School propaganda repeatedly, challenging him to read and refute a book:
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/intelligence_or_control_of_the_money_supply#c121405

In response, Haller clearly replied that  

What your nonsense coupled with constant, authoritarian attacks (are we sure JRichards is not GW - anyone notice that more Richards = less GW?) has forced me to do is pack up as many of my Austrian money books as I could find, and bring them with me back to my new school. As I find the snatches of time to reread them, I will eventually do up a formal post on my views on the Money Question, and how the latter fits into a white nationalist framework of thought.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/intelligence_or_control_of_the_money_supply#c121426

I told Haller that “Thus you reveal in your own words you’ve been promoting propaganda.  You strongly insult alternatives, promoting things you can’t defend because you don’t know what it is exactly that you’re promoting!  You just have a basic understanding that it’s good for Jews and the bankers.”  I added that “All I’m interested in is a refutation, in your own words, of the specific issues I’ve identified in the numerous discussions we’ve had on the money question.” http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/intelligence_or_control_of_the_money_supply#c121702

Haller came up with a lengthy response, where he doesn’t accuse me of lying: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/intelligence_or_control_of_the_money_supply#c121733
But above he accuses me of lying because I didn’t link to him exposing himself, and note that in the lengthy response, there’s no attempt whatsoever to justify a gold standard or show that the government is controlling the money supply, two central tenets of the Austrian School.

Had I replied earlier, I would’ve bet you that Haller will soon be back to normal, indulging in every single behavior I identified in #39, including promoting the Austrian School, but Haller beat me to it.  Here, he promoted a gold standard again, a fundamental argument of the Austrian School, oblivious to the issue for which he was formally trashed: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//bowery_goes_stark_ii_the_starkness_continues#c122927 [February 11, 2012, 11:31 AM; also note that he’s back to his normal language, calling Bowery stupid and wondering “Why are people so f——-ignorant around here?!”; also read his other foul commentary above].

Note that @95, he reposts a comment of his from another place instead of linking to it, back to normal behavior.

Don’t you feel proud of your decision to bring back a serpent into your home that I threw out for your own benefit?

If you’re not proud, perhaps the following will help.

Haller @69 said

If JR states that space lizards are controlling the Federal Reserve, how exactly could I disprove that? Must I set up a base camp, or at least multiple cameras, in the Fed’s vicinity, to monitor comings and goings? But of course the lizards, being from a more advanced civilization, have access to cloaking devices. That’s why we never see them.

This was Haller’s attempt to address the topic of falsifiability of my argument on 9/11.

If you’re still not proud of having made the right decision, there’s also this from Haller @69

If JR has even a prima facie case wrt 9-11, then he should assemble all his evidence, present each individual element of it to a credentialed or recognized expert in the relevant field, get them all to sign off on their portions of the case, do up a formal report, and start trying to interest major newspapers in the topic. Perhaps I’m overly ‘duped’, but I have a hard time believing that an evidentially plausible case demonstrating that 9-11 is all a big lie would not interest someone in the media. The media needs to sell content, after all, and this would be HUGE.

So it makes no difference to have pointed out to him that many of the 9/11 lies were promoted by the mainstream media, which are under Jewish control, and the discussion even mention the fate of Susan Lindauer (FBI) who tried to approach the media when she learned of an impending 9/11 attack (she was arrested and incarcerated).

I think you should pat yourself on the back for inviting a serpent back into your house.

On Dr. Lister, notice his comment @38, quoting a geneticist, “To quote Cavalli-Sforza, albeit in a different context: “we must simplify the subject, thus unavoidably falsifying it, and later we must sophisticate the falsely simple beginning away”.”  @98, he says that he’s evaluating my claims via a Cavalli-Sforza process, and the illustrative example offered is of claims of alien visitation in the context of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

On second thought, I think you should drink a beer while patting yourself on the back for a job well done at being disinclined toward implementing any rules so that a reasonable discussion can take place.

Posted by J Richards on February 12, 2012, 02:45 AM | #

Ivan

1 or 2 of your comments were deleted by James Bowery himself, not Renner.  The third one I’m not sure; it depends on what date and time (MR server time) it was posted.

CaptainChaos @61

Moral vanity isn’t the reason for my proposed exit.  If you don’t realize the problem of having to refute the same argument to the same person over and over, let’s consider the issue of credibility in a scenario where a naive person comes across an article of mine with a claim that’s interesting and important if true, but this person doesn’t have the background knowledge to judge the article.

No matter how complex the article and how much detail it has, the possibilities are that it’s either true, or false, or a mixture of truth and falsehood.  In the latter two cases, falsehood may be a result of ignorance, incompetent analysis or deliberate lies.  Because the claim is interesting and, if true, the implications important, this person will be interested in making an estimate of the likelihood that the claim is true, which he can’t do by reading the article itself.  So he’ll be looking for cues.

One cue would be Haller’s comment @3, where he tries to portray me as unreasonable and himself as reasonable.  Another cue would be Lew’s comment @59, where he accuses me of making frivolous claims of people being controlled opposition, and suggests that he’s properly critiqued a Fed straw man I created.  Yet another cue is Uh’s comment @57, where he accuses me of deleting people’s comments, a vile lie, suggesting that I can’t handle criticism.

A naive person who stumbles across doesn’t know much about the commenters and he must consider the possibility that these criticisms are correct, and if correct, then he has a reason to be prejudiced against the likelihood of my claim being true. 

So, I have to respond to Haller @39, all of which is a repetition, which you can verify as correct accusations if you follow the links, and even Haller’s response @89 is an admission that I’m correct about all but one of the accusations against him, which I originally didn’t support with a link in #39, and I have to post on it @145.  Then I have to respond to Lew @144, which is another repetition.  And I’ve already mentioned that Uh is stating a vile lie about me.  I’ve taken a lot of abuse from commenters that I haven’t bothered to delete.  So what is it that I’ve been deleting?

Is all this repetition and slander worth it for me, time-wise, to respond to so that naive readers don’t end up unfairly prejudiced against me for making interesting claims that they can’t evaluate themselves?  No, it isn’t because my time is better served posting on more interesting claims and making previous claim more robust.

Rules of reasonable discussion take care of the repetition problem and force people to address evidence instead of resorting to slander, and if I can’t implement rules here, I should work elsewhere and direct those in my faction there.  The net result would be that MR Jews would end up largely talking to each other, and if you’ve read my plan @56, you know they’re not succeeding in fooling a lot of naive individuals who stumble across.

Posted by Emily on February 12, 2012, 05:42 AM | #

As an outside observer it is painfully obvious that this site is severely attacked AND that absolutely nothing is being done about it.

No one who has a site like this is so naive that he does not understand that Jews and others who are hostile to pro-white sites will try to attack it. So there is only one answer left. The owner of this site is aware that Jews troll the site and ACCEPTS it.

Why would someone let his own site be attacked and do nothing about it? Because he himself does not care and might even like it. The simple truth is that you fix a problem only if you think it is one.

I think the owner wants the Jews here.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 06:11 AM | #

If you’re still not proud of having made the right decision, there’s also this from Haller @69

If JR has even a prima facie case wrt 9-11, then he should assemble all his evidence, present each individual element of it to a credentialed or recognized expert in the relevant field, get them all to sign off on their portions of the case, do up a formal report, and start trying to interest major newspapers in the topic. Perhaps I’m overly ‘duped’, but I have a hard time believing that an evidentially plausible case demonstrating that 9-11 is all a big lie would not interest someone in the media. The media needs to sell content, after all, and this would be HUGE.(LH)

So it makes no difference to have pointed out to him that many of the 9/11 lies were promoted by the mainstream media, which are under Jewish control, and the discussion even mention the fate of Susan Lindauer (FBI) who tried to approach the media when she learned of an impending 9/11 attack (she was arrested and incarcerated).(JRichards)

It’s easy to say that ” the mainstream media, ... are under Jewish control”, but this is classic obfuscation. For what does Jewish control mean, exactly? Is it liberal? Is it neocon? I accept the Jews’ disproportionate media influence and ownership, but that doesn’t imply ‘monolithicism’. Otherwise why was so much of the Jewish media (starting with the NYT) so anti-Bush, when he was advancing the Jewish cause by invading Iraq?

Jews may have all this media influence, but it manifests itself as a general support for liberalism and PC. Many media Jews are quite hostile to neocons and even Israel. Moreover, is every newspaper of any repute everywhere owned or controlled by Jews? There is no newspaper anywhere who wouldn’t publish Richards’s case proving that the official 9-11 story was a huge hoax? Not one? No one wants to sell papers if it violartes some undeclared Jewish agenda? But of course, merely assert the media is under Jewish control, and any counterclaim gets nixed. Conspiracist mentality on display.

Susan Lindauer (ex-CIA, not FBI, fyi) is a rather sketchy character; thus of course perfect for the conspiracy brigades. As to judging the evidence, it should at least be noted that she once worked for he notorious black nationalist and socialist Senator Carol Mosely Braun, and has a history of being on the Far Left. Note also her involvement with some sketchy “American” Islamic “charities” (aren’t they always?).  This is supposed to be “definitive”. No doubts here!

ON SUSAN LINDAUER

Turncoat or Straitjacket?

By Clinton W. Taylor on 10.18.06 @ 12:07AM

The odd case of “Symbol Susan” Lindauer.

........

My first venture into punditry dealt with the arrest of Susan Lindauer on various charges, amounting to her acting as a paid agent for Saddam’s intelligence service. Lindauer worked for several Democratic lawmakers, including Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Peter DeFazio, and Senators Ron Wyden and Carol Moseley-Braun, and also wrote for Fortune and U.S. News & World Report. According to her indictment, Lindauer worked with Iraqi agents based in New York starting in 1999, and even met them in Manhattan on September 19, 2001. That’s right: eight days after the atrocity of September 11, Lindauer was allegedly meeting with enemy intelligence agents somewhere near the ruins of the World Trade Center. (According to the New York Times, her last job with Congress ceased in 2002, so she was allegedly working for both the Iraqi government and ours at the same time.)

She is also charged with flying to Baghdad in 2002 to meet with Iraqi intelligence agents (who dubbed her “Symbol Susan”), accepting money from them, and then attempting to influence American foreign policy. Apparently she contacted a distant relative, then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, about mediating the crisis between President Bush and Saddam.

After her arrest, it emerged that Lindauer was…not all there. Two court-appointed doctors found her mentally incompetent and unfit to stand trial. She was committed to a Federal hospital in Texas last October. The New York Times quotes one doctor as finding that

Ms. Lindauer had a history of psychotic episodes going back to her childhood, possibly at the age of 7, the judge said. These include her contention that she had gifts of prophecy that allowed her to report 11 bombings before they happened, that she spoke with divine inspiration and that she was an angel.

In retrospect, that probably shouldn’t have come as too much of a surprise. In a 1998 statement asserting that Syria, not Libya, had ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Lindauer asserted that she had been the victim of some rather unusual harassment:

“Someone put acid on the steering wheel of my car on a day I was supposed to drive to NYC for a meeting at the Libya House. I scrubbed my hands with a toilet brush, but my face was burned so badly that 3 weeks later friends worried I might be badly scarred,” Lindauer told MEIB. “Also, my house was bugged with listening devices and cameras—little red laser lights in the shower vent. And I survived several assassination attempts.”

(Again: she said this publicly in 1998, when she also admitted to working with Libyan officials since 1995. Her last job with a Democratic congressman? 2002.)

What did come as a surprise, however, was that she was freed from custody last month. She refused to take antipsychotic medication. A judge refused to order her to be medicated forcibly, and instead ordered her set free. Another judge will decide whether and how she will stand trial.

If you read the Times account, it would seem like all this fuss was just about Lindauer’s overtures to Andrew Card on behalf of the Iraqi government. It wasn’t. To clarify Lindauer’s intent, the FBI also ran a sting with an undercover agent posing as a Libyan Intelligence operative. According to her indictment, Lindauer met with him in June 2003 and discussed the need for foreign nations to support the Iraqi resistance against United States troops. Then, at this “Libyan agent’s” request, she performed “dead drops” she thought were helping the Iraqi resistance. The timing of these alleged dead drops was as damning as that of her September 2001 meeting with Iraqi intelligence. As I wrote back in 2004:

It has not yet emerged what was in the dead drops, but the indictment alleges that she executed one of them “on or about August 6, 2003.” That was one day after a “resistance group” which Lindauer supported killed an American civilian mailman in Tikrit. Her second alleged dead drop occurred “on or about August 21, 2003,” two days after these “resistance groups” killed U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 others with a horrific truck bomb at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad. How could Lindauer not have known the malignant character of the terrorists that continue to murder Coalition forces and pro-democracy Iraqis every day? The rubble, after all, was still smoking when Lindauer made her drop.

If these charges are true they utterly destroy Lindauer’s pretense of wanting peace in the Middle East. A charge of active support for Iraqi terrorist groups ought to ensure Lindauer is ostracized from political life until she can refute the charges. But this charge is not the focus of the coverage.
An essay about Lindauer’s release at the left-wing website TPM Cafe quoted from my piece, but neglected to discuss the allegations of espionage for the Iraqi resistance. When I saw that, I began to wonder whether there was a groundswell to rehabilitate Lindauer’s reputation as a left-wing activist. Soon another journalist for a Takoma Park, Maryland paper contacted me for an upcoming retrospective on the Lindauer case. And recently I saw an article in the Detroit News about an FBI raidlast month on the Michigan headquarters of Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations, an anti-war advocacy group. Who should be quoted defending the charity, but…

Susan Lindauer, a Takona [sic] Park, Md., woman who has worked with [FAAIR founder Muthanna] Al-Hanooti on Muslim causes in Washington, said he met monthly with the local FBI task force in Detroit on anti-terrorism and was a liaison between Arab-Americans and the community. He’s spent considerable time in Iraq since the start of the recent war acting as a bridge between the U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens, she said.

“I’m amazed, given all the excellent work he’s done, that they would come after him,” Lindauer said.

With a character reference like “Symbol Susan,” the raid on FAAIR and a related raid the same day on Life for Relief and Development, a major Islamic charity headquartered in Southfield, actually begin to look more ominous. The reason for the raid is sealed, but the legal director for LR&D noted that the investigation was “tax-related, not terror related”—although he told another paper that the agents “were interested in whether its aid to Iraq violated U.S. sanctions in place before the war.” Why, then, does the reason for the raid remained sealed, and why was the FBI assisted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force?

LR&D has a checkered history itself, as it was supported by someone else uncomfortably close to Saddam’s regime: Iraqi-American businessman and Oil-for-Food beneficiary Shakir al-Khafaji. They were the group who, with al-Khafaji, sponsored a September 2002 trip to Baghdad for (Democratic) Congressmen David Bonior, Jim McDermott, and Mike Thompson.

These connections between Saddam’s stooges, Lindauer, and al-Khafaji, and this investigation suggest that an Iraqi connection may lie behind last month’s FBI raids.

One hopes FAAIR and Life for Relief and Development are wise to Lindauer. On October 6 one of LR&D’s humanitarian workers in Iraq, Abdel-Sattar Abdullah al-Mashhadani, was murdered (along with his driver) by “sectarian militias.” Al-Mashhadani, a husband and father who directed several charity projects including a water development plant in Southern Iraq, was pulled out of his taxi at a checkpoint in Huriya, Baghdad, and executed by a “sectarian militia.”

Recent clashes in Huriya between the Sunni Al-Mashhadani clan and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militias provide some context for the murder. Sadr’s goons may have been attempting to rid the neighborhood of everyone named Mashhadani, in retaliation for a failed raid on Sadr’s headquarters a week earlier. In a press release, LR&D called the murdered Al-Mashhadani “another victim of the senseless violence in Iraq.”

Was this senseless violence what Susan Lindauer envisioned in her machinations on behalf of the Iraqi “resistance”? At best Lindauer is, as the court found, a deeply disturbed fantasist; at worst, she is a traitor who tried to support terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in their attempts to kill American soldiers in Iraq. Either way, it will be instructive to see which groups offer her an opportunity to continue her poisonous activism.

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/10/18/turncoat-or-straitjacket

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 06:31 AM | #

As an outside observer it is painfully obvious that this site is severely attacked AND that absolutely nothing is being done about it.

No one who has a site like this is so naive that he does not understand that Jews and others who are hostile to pro-white sites will try to attack it. So there is only one answer left. The owner of this site is aware that Jews troll the site and ACCEPTS it.

Why would someone let his own site be attacked and do nothing about it? Because he himself does not care and might even like it. The simple truth is that you fix a problem only if you think it is one.

I think the owner wants the Jews here. (Emily)

What are your examples of “attack” - JRichards’s improbable conspiracist theories, or the throwing of cold water on them by the more rational members of the sites? And how can one tell who is a Jew?

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 07:30 AM | #

Not to keep this running much longer but…

@Richards

I’m sorry if you think I’ve been attacking you in bad faith – I do think your style of thinking is essentially in the style of Icke and is generally not sound, not only in the precise details, but in its overall methodology. And I do think you have displayed unhelpful psychological traits in your comments too.

GW is placed in a difficult position with regard to everyone. No doubt every poster, if they say anything beyond a banality like “good article, well done” will eventually be the focus of some discontent. GW probably gets emails all the time along the lines of “why is X allowed to post such rubbish/troll/disrupt things?”

As this is ultimately GW’s space and we are his guests. GW has to decide if someone is beyond the pale and assess such claims – judging such factors as – even if X is wrong are they acting in bad faith? Does X consistently disrupt things in an unreasonable way? He has to weight up any trade-offs that exist between the bad and good elements of anyone here before deciding that the person in question needs to be put in their place or discouraged from continuing in their bad behaviours.

So if GW ever emailed me and said; “Graham please stop being so abrasive with people its a bit over the top” I would have a few choices – one would be to accept that and try my best to mend my ways – second go off in a huff never to be heard from again – thirdly carry on as before and ignore the request.

So let’s assume the third option occurs then GW must then again interpret the behaviour – the person has a psychological make-up that means for some reason they just can’t help themselves (that it’s just part of who they are), or it’s a deliberate and planned behaviour/attitude (trolling etc.). Even then GW might only come to the ‘bad faith’ conclusion after a repeating cycle of requests to tone down the unacceptable habit and then witness repeated and proactive conduct to the contrary. Its not a black and white issue accept in the most extreme and obvious cases.

As for Mr. Haller I do not know the man other than a name on a website, we have many disagreements (we are not a ‘team’ out to get you) and if a consensus emerges that Mr. Haller is acting in bad faith, in way that is ultimately deeply counter-productive then GW will have to act as he sees fit. I’m afraid your suggested rules – aka Majority Rights becomes Majority Richards cannot be seen as acceptable by anyone attempting to view the situation as reasonably and fairly as possible.

I also have disagreements with others too, not just you. Recall the thread on Mr. Renner’s interview with Dr. Sunic. I did suggest that it was fairly empty and Renner’s ideas were in danger of being little more than a species of political theology – explaining what I meant by that term. Now again I do not know the man beyond a name on a website. And I don’t think those concepts I brought to the discussion were totally ‘off-topic’.

Mr. Renner decided not to comment up my commentary – now can I say that indicated his ‘bad faith’? Hardly. Its very much Mr. Renner’s ‘style’ – he may have ignored my commentary because that’s what he does – I am judged by him to be a cretin unworthy of engaging with, perhaps alternatively he doesn’t have a reasonable and well thought-out response. I don’t know and I’m not going to get so upset that I issue a ‘demand’ to him. If people make reasonable points in the comments to front page items that are then only met with silence, you have to have some faith in the readers to make up their own minds as best they can, yes? Mr. Richards you seem to have overwhelming faith in your own abilities but very little in those you wish to convince. That’s not a good starting point.

Posted by Grimoire on February 12, 2012, 07:48 AM | #

Israeli complicity in the 911 is obvious. My interest has shifted from details and facts concerning the self evident - towards what is more troubling, the question of the blind eye.

Emily #147

I have asked these questions myself.

@Leon Haller

Your response to Richards is prevarication.

Posted by Emily on February 12, 2012, 08:00 AM | #

Graham Lister:” judging such factors as – even if X is wrong are they acting in bad faith?”

No, he should judge whether or not someone’s actions HURT the people this site purports to care about.

If someone shoots another person accidentally the outcome is exactly the same as if he had done it intentionally.

From what I can see here there is no doubt that there is malicious intent that reeks of standard jew tactics used in internet forum sabotage, and not just innocent differences of opinion. However, as I said, if the outcome is hurtful to the people it is supposed to be helping the underlying motive is irrelevant.

I have not ever seen a site that is so badly managed, and it loses credibility because of it. That is possibly the intent.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 08:18 AM | #

For the record:

I think MR is an attractive site for its purpose, and that GW generally does a good job moderating with a light hand (which I would make a bit heavier wrt obvious trolls like Ivan). The one huge mistake made was in granting such extreme admin power to JRichards, an individual temperamentally unfit for such a task. GW has responded to the Richards Question in a reasonable and ultimately wise fashion. MajorityRichards would not be the site he originally had in mind.

The task now is to recover the many fine persons who have quite predictably dropped away of late. Here are a few, who should be encouraged to return should any of you come across them in other fora:

Fred Scrooby
Dasein
Trainspotter
TAANSTAAFL
Notus Wind
Philosopher King
PF
Svigor
Gudmund
CS
Foundation
Wandrin
anon from Belize
Selous Scout
Guest Lurker
Hunter Wallace
Sam Davidson
Matt Parrott
Thunder

My deepest apologies to any other old fighters who have slipped my memory.

(And don’t leave us, “Uh”!)

Posted by Grimoire on February 12, 2012, 08:40 AM | #

@Leon Haller

I really don’t want to, but because I know you will ask ‘how am I prevaricating’

It’s easy to say that ” the mainstream media, ... are under Jewish control”, but this is classic obfuscation.

....beggars the imagination.

For what does Jewish control mean, exactly? Is it liberal? Is it neocon? I accept the Jews’ disproportionate media influence and ownership, but that doesn’t imply ‘monolithicism’.

It doesn’t have to imply ‘monolithicism’...

Otherwise why was so much of the Jewish media (starting with the NYT) so anti-Bush, when he was advancing the Jewish cause by invading Iraq?

This however does imply ‘monolithicism’.

Jews may have all this media influence, but it manifests itself as a general support for liberalism and PC…......etc. etc. etc.

This is so naive I think one could be forgiven if they suspect you of being a shabbez goy. The rest of your post is nothing but extended obfuscation and prevarication.

@Graham Lister;
                    I agree with your comments on etiquette, however I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who attempted to deal with the fact that MR has been rendered null and void as a site for serious discussion on the Nationalist issue in Britain, Europe or in general.

It is an established and known fact that any Nationalist site of any prominence is routinely penetrated by Metsada operatives. On any major campus in the N.America one can see in the open, employment notices on the corkboards of the Hillel student societies for both paid and volunteer agents to influence and obstruct Nationalist sites, crowd the editing boards at Wikipedia, obstruct discussion of issues concerning Palestine and Israeli false flag operations, etc.etc. etc. There are literally thousands of people doing this work. It is no secret, but common knowledge.

A way around this is to adopt strict protocols of discourse. Points may be made, disagreements tendered…...but obstructionism and juvenile idiocy can not be allowed, nor can the discourse be allowed to descend to the level of babble.
Freedom of Speech is a privilege and practice of free men, not bought men, not slaves, nor the insane or the overwhelmingly stupid or deluded. It requires a degree of protocol and respect. The purpose of discourse is to extend understanding of the issue. Those who do not follow the protocol are therefore not free men, and have no place in a Nationalist forum.

Posted by Grimoire on February 12, 2012, 08:54 AM | #

@Leon Haller
                I don’t mean to target you Haller. But the question at issue is the reason why the majority of those you list have left this site. And just so you know where my cards lay…the only reason I post here is because I am interested in whether Richards will return some sanity to this site…as it was I see nothing of use going on here other than a waste of time. I think you should eat humble pie and accept that Richards intentions are well meant. Questions regarding 911 or mono-casuality can be discussed rationally without descending into rabid Jew baiting.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 12, 2012, 09:17 AM | #

Emily and others

Let’s not to get into the debate about intentionality and moral consequences (can people really do bad things for good reasons or vice-versa etc.).

OK you have to made your own ‘call’ (use your own judgemental rationality) on the trustworthiness/competency/honesty etc., of GW or indeed anyone else on the site but simply shrieking the J-word in a of pique isn’t terribly convincing.

‘HURT’ is a rather fuzzy concept – can’t you understand why Mr. Richards methodology and assumptions might hurt the objectives of MR as outlined by GW? You might have a ‘gut feeling’ on the topic but at least run it by your brain as well?

Grim – OK I can believe that people do act as you say – what exactly can be done about it, in toto? We must develop our ‘bullshit’ detectors but in rationally defensible way. If the front page content is extremely strong then all the babble in the world can only have so much effect. That’s why GW is unconcerned if extreme mutlicultural liberals etc., want to come and comment because he believes in the coherency and robust nature of his own position. He welcomes the challenge, he does not cower from it like a frightened adult-child of middle-America screaming “it’s not fair, they are all J-things that know too many big words” or whatever.

I mean might MR become the site for the ‘non-bullshit’ discussion of relevant topics and issues? It’s just some people think the idea of history as a primarily a ‘conspiracy’ of some type is part of the bullshit - equally the idea that in a very precise and specific way everything that someone dislikes about the modern world is exclusively the work of the J-things might just also be part of the bullshit - an exercise in non-thought?

Influence and control are different phenomena. After all if you ‘totally’ control society why go and hire students to disrupt things on internet sites? Or hound Finkelstein out of his job etc.?

Posted by Dan Dare on February 12, 2012, 10:32 AM | #

Grimoire @154

It is an established and known fact that any Nationalist site of any prominence is routinely penetrated by Metsada operatives.

Do you feel that has been the case with MR? If so, who would you suggest amongst the present commentariat are the principal suspects? It would seem obvious that, in order to be effective, any such operatives would need to have established a local persona and be a regular if not prolific contributor and should therefore be quite readily identifiable.

It’s perhaps high time that this matter was brought out into the open.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 10:51 AM | #

@Leon Haller
          I don’t mean to target you Haller. But the question at issue is the reason why the majority of those you list have left this site. And just so you know where my cards lay…the only reason I post here is because I am interested in whether Richards will return some sanity to this site…as it was I see nothing of use going on here other than a waste of time. I think you should eat humble pie and accept that Richards intentions are well meant. Questions regarding 911 or mono-casuality can be discussed rationally without descending into rabid Jew baiting. (Grimoire)

Alas, more interminable admin discussion.

OK, I’m used to being targeted, but I take you at your word, though I’m not sure what you’re implying in your last sentence, or perhaps, whom you are addressing (I am among the non-Jewish, non-Jew-baiters; Richards is at the summit of Blame Jews First).

Whether Richards’s intentions are well-meant is an interesting question. For the record, I have never really thought JR was a troll or enemy ‘plant’ of any kind. He is too intellectually and, of greater importance, psychologically, consistent. There are a good number here I dislike, but the only troll I am certain of is “Ivan”, whom I believe you yourself outed. One with any intuition, and sufficient exposure, can see a recurrent pattern with Ivan of attempting to stir s—- up. The clue, besides his total lack of even attempted serious contributions (including his idiotic post on Probability Theory of White Survival, which was nothing more than a bunch of mini-biographies of theorists gleaned from the World Book Encyclopedia or someplace similar - no arguments in support of thesis were proffered), is the way he not only tries to create dissension, but inevitably ‘cozies up’ to the intellectually weakest, or strangest, or most repulsive commenters, while simultaneously casting aspersions on the intellectually best. That is a troll’s tactic.

I’ve never said JR was like that, though if he were an intentional agent of destruction I would say he has played that role brilliantly (unlike dumb Ivan, who never gets very far). I’ve mentioned several times that I wish I had the literary talent to create such an internally consistent character as Richards, perhaps for a novel about paranoia.

No, I think on balance that Richards’s intentions re saving the white race (and purifying MR of trolls or instigators) probably are sincere. The issue has always been twofold: first, what is his purchase on reality, in terms both of the larger ideological issues, as well as his intuition re who doesn’t belong at MR; and second, to what extent has he been administering the site in a fair, responsible, and inviting manner. I think he massively failed in both areas. I find his understanding of the causes of white decline to be risibly simplistic, where they’re not plain wrong; he persecutes the best commenters, while utterly failing to discipline the unserious merely because they flatter or side with him; and lastly, he on many occasions completely abused his admin powers, essentially threatening persons with whom he disagrees that they should either adopt his idiosyncratic views, or leave (while in my ‘special’ case, throwing up various tests - write a 10,000 word essay on some crackpot economist, which command I didn’t even see, though I continue to be disbelieved on that point ... as if I give a s—- one way or the other, and am going to lie ...).

It was “uh” who pointed out that Richards was attempting to transform Majorityrights into MajorityRichards, first, by the aforesaid harassment techniques, and then more broadly, by posting legions of news issues threads on his hobbyhorses, and in that way seeking to steer the conversation into his approved channels, rather as if I started posting many news pieces about theology or what’s happening in the Catholic Church. The Church is an important component of the West, of course, but hardly the whole of it. People might start wondering if MR had ‘gone Papist’, and at least some would be accordingly put off, I’m sure. MR is presumably a site devoted to all aspects of European nationalism, not merely the perfidy of the Jews, or, yet more bizarrely, ‘Money’ (crankdom).

Oh, and I almost forgot Richards’s wonderfully group-enlarging habit of denouncing not only his opponents at MR, but legions of the faithful even in other venues. Hence we have had attacks on counter-currents, Hunter Wallace (Linder? I can’t remember), Ron Paul (the most anti-Israel candidate for the US Presidency in modern memory), Jared Taylor (!!), and others I have forgotten. I think he’s at least implied that Kevin MacDonald may now be “controlled opposition” (possibly the leading phrase in the Richards lexicography; means Jew-manipulated or neutered, for the uninitiated).

Grimoire, you can’t seriously be defending this behavior?

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 12, 2012, 11:14 AM | #

@ Dan Dare @157

It’s perhaps high time that this matter was brought out into the open.

I have already seriously proposed Leon Haller as a crypto-Jew operative.  This was based on an analysis of his utterances and consistent behaviors:

Mocking by contradiction.

This is a typical Jewish tactic used to discredit, demean and belittle concepts and ideals held in high esteem by others.

1.  Leon claims to be a Catholic graduate theology student.  He subsequently brags of engaging in fornication.  Fornication is deemed to be a grave sin according to official Church teaching.  Leon thus minimizes the doctrinal teachings of a Church he claims to adhere to.  However, promotion of sexual degeneracy among whites is a strategic goal of Jewry.

2.  Leon further claims to be a “White Nationalist” of some type and then brags of fornicating a non-white girlfriend.

3.  Favorable idealization of the concept of “Zionism” in the form of his “White Zion”.  This strongly and negatively contrasts with his well-known treatment of fundamental Roman Catholic and white nationalist tenets.

4.  Non-stop promotion of the so-called “Austrian School”.  This is a well known vector for Jewish financial propaganda.  Almost as well-known is Leon’s habit of delivering insulting ad hominem attacks on anyone opposing these Jewish monetarist precepts.  These are intended to derail discussion at the outset.

Posted by Ivan on February 12, 2012, 01:00 PM | #

@Emily:

As an outside observer it is painfully obvious that this site is severely attacked AND that absolutely nothing is being done about it.

No one who has a site like this is so naive that he does not understand that Jews and others who are hostile to pro-white sites will try to attack it. So there is only one answer left. The owner of this site is aware that Jews troll the site and ACCEPTS it.

Why would someone let his own site be attacked and do nothing about it? Because he himself does not care and might even like it. The simple truth is that you fix a problem only if you think it is one.

I think the owner wants the Jews here.

Immensely perceptive observation, Emily! This amounts to saying that MR itself is basically a controlled opposition. One can dispute the validity of such a conclusion, but hardly one can deny the legitimacy of Emily’s genuine concern. So I am curious if GW cares to address it.

@Haller:

And how can one tell who is a Jew?

It’s not that difficult as you might think, Leon. In fact, this is precisely the area where you present a great asset:

(1) If the commenter’s name is Leon Haller, he is a Jew, or promoting Jewish interests (there is really no difference between the two).
(2) Be suspicious of those who Leon Haller likes and wants them continue doing what they are doing here.
(3) Be suspicious of those who like Leon Haller and think that he has something valuable to contribute (except unwittingly helping to identify the members of the Jew crew).
(4) If a long comment is full of references to kosher “philosophers” that gives you a headache before you even start reading it, then the commenter is kosher.
(5) Watch the language - if it is pretentious and wrapped up in pseudoscientific joggling of words, and if it consists of sentences each of which seems to make sense per se, but they don’t fit well as the pieces of mosaic would - then you know that you are dealing with one of the chosen.

@J Richards:

Ivan

1 or 2 of your comments were deleted by James Bowery himself, not Renner.  The third one I’m not sure; it depends on what date and time (MR server time) it was posted.

J Richards, thank you for taking the trouble of checking that out. However your findings do not contradict my inferences about Soren’s unsavory acts, in general, and specifically my accusations against him.

Those 1 or 2 of comments you are taking about appeared in James Bowery threads 1 and 2, and I was cautious enough not to accuse Soren for deleting them. It makes perfect sense that those comments were deleted by James Bowery himself. I reproduce them here, so you can judge for yourselves why Bowery wouldn’t want them to be there:

Deleted comment 1:

The creator of virtual reality, who seems stuck in that reality, concludes his 13 minutes uninterrupted, folded like bowel, introduction as follows:

- So ... I guess having said all that, sort of an introduction to where I am at, I could talk more in more detail about some of my ideas related to this sort of who I am at this point.

- Sure, go ahead, - replies snoozed a bit host.

- You have anything in particular you want me to pursue ...? I could talk about my ideas about Jewish virulence ...

After this waterboarding, I came to a conclusion that I owe an apology to Sorry Renner and Dr Graham: they are not that bad, after all.

P.S. The above comment has been purged within minutes of its first post. My best guess is that it was horizontally transmitted to the vertical reality of James Bowelly. Just curious - how long it will survive this time. Sarcasm gets these pathetic little wizards better than pages of factual argumentation.

Deleted comment 2:

Oh, God damn that hacker ... that’s second night that asshole’s cut in.
He is giving me a headache.
Will somebody please explain to me what the hell it’s all about?
Just that idiot is licking his nuts again
Blow it out your ass.

On the other hand, the comment, for deleting of which I have accused Soren, was made in Kai Murros’ thread and it had nothing to do with Bowery, so I don’t believe that it was Bowery who deleted it.

If anyone can prove to me without reasonable doubt that it wasn’t Soren who deleted that comment, and, in addition, edited my other comment in the same Kai Murros thread, I will apologize to him without a slightest hesitation.

Posted by Grimoire on February 12, 2012, 10:10 PM | #

@ Dan Dare #157

It is an established and known fact that any Nationalist site of any prominence is routinely penetrated by Metsada operatives. (G)

Do you feel that has been the case with MR? If so, who would you suggest amongst the present commentariat are the principal suspects? It would seem obvious that, in order to be effective, any such operatives would need to have established a local persona and be a regular if not prolific contributor and should therefore be quite readily identifiable.

It’s perhaps high time that this matter was brought out into the open. (D Dare)

Yes Dan, any site such as this is routinely attended. The question is not so much ‘who’, because once banned they will be replaced by others with suitable tactics and more extensive goals. The goal is to restrict cohesion and promote division among their enemies. And in this they are successful.

The answer to the problem is obvious. Restrict posting and comments to those who show respect to the cause by respecting the rules of intelligent argument. This will not eliminate imposture but will restrict their advantage in engagement. In open and rational discussion, stripped of subterfuge, they will lose - every time.

Why has this not been done? Has MR advanced Nationalist thought in Britain by one iota? Or has it reinforced the image of Nationalists in Britain as divided, confused and incapable of intelligent action or thought - the image that immediately strikes Nationalism off the list of intelligent actors in modern society. Because it is not Racism, Nazism, Holocaust denial, Jew baiting or whatever the regulates Nationalism to the insane fringe of political discourse…it is the actions of Nationalists themselves.

If they cannot put their own house in order, (and anyone can see they have not), no one will support them no matter how much at bottom Nationalism is something they yearn for.

Posted by J Richards on February 13, 2012, 02:16 AM | #

Guessedworker

Note the Haller serpent @148.  He goes into a useless digression of Jewish control of the mainstream media as an obfuscation, when he’s the one trying to obfuscate the issue as liberal vs. neocon, and goes into the bogus hostility that the “liberal” Jews have for the neocons.

Note also that his test for the validity of my argument on 9/11 isn’t whether the conclusions follow from the evidence but where the argument is published.  So by his own admission, he’s incapable of evaluating it.  One would think that someone incapable of judging an argument on its own merits shouldn’t be trying to ridicule it by comparing it to the argument that space lizards control the Federal Reserve @69.

So what do you think of this fine person you’ve readmitted to your house? 

And notice the lengthy article he copied and pasted in the comment, which even you asked him not to do as comments space isn’t for posting articles that are available online.  He just had to link to it, and he both links to it and pastes it.  Notice also that the article is slander against a woman that obtained insider information on a forthcoming 9/11 and tried to approach the media that Haller suggested would be a test for the soundness of my argument on 9/11.  Haller bring up an old article, failing to tell us that whereas Lindauer was accused of conspiring to act as an unregistered lobbyist for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, she was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings and all charges were dropped in 2009. 

Jews had no case against her.  It was arrest, incarceration, harassment, slander because she tried to do something to prevent 9/11 from happening.  Now she’s just passed of as mentally ill, what some of the fine serpents you’ve got commenting here try to argue about me, too.

Aren’t you very pleased with your inaction?

Posted by J Richards on February 13, 2012, 02:54 AM | #

Emily

Since I have a lot to do with the healthy traffic MR enjoys, I owe it to the sincere faction to facilitate a useful discussion elsewhere.  I’ll be working with some people on a new website and may send emails to a number of sincere individuals when it’s ready.

In the meantime, don’t be disappointed at the outcome here.  Have some fun with the Jews that frequent MR.  Sprinkle some truth in the midst of their discussions and watch them squeal. 

Ivan

I can’t guarantee that Søren Renner wasn’t the person who deleted one comment and modified another on the Kai Murros article discussion. 

I changed some of the software settings to better figure out who’s doing things like this.  Next time I’ll have a better answer.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 03:01 AM | #

I invite others to do their own net searches re Susan Lindauer. Note two facts, and then decide for yourselves as to her cred:

1) She has worked for several Democrat legislators, including the truly awful (and relentlessly black supremacist) Carol Mosely Braun.

2) She has done considerable outreach and propaganda activities on behalf of various Muslim groups, some with very questionable ties (indeed, most Muslim “charities” in the USA are, in fact, ethnosupremacist organizations, often with direct links to anti-American terrorists).

Lindauer’s credibility, even if the allegations re her mental unfitness and involvement with enemy forces are untrue, is nil with this American patriot. Neither loyal Americans nor loyal whites aid and consort with Islamic groups.

Nothing else need be said.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 03:03 AM | #

Re Haller @158

Cat got your tongue, Brother Grim?

Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 03:23 AM | #

For those especially interested in 9-11:

http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/1400030846/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329121312&sr=8-1

Posted by anon on February 13, 2012, 05:01 AM | #

J Richards

If you don’t realize the problem of having to refute the same argument to the same person over and over…So, I have to respond to [whoever]

You don’t have to. Focus on honing what you consider to be the signal, boil it down to as simple and as compelling a form as possible and ignore what you see as noise. Only debate people you feel are wasting your time when you’re using them to practise making your own points shorter and sharper.

If your signal is the true one then you can rely on the brains and gut feel of the readers - and if not that then if your signal is a lot shorter than the noise you can rely on their short attention spans.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 06:31 AM | #

Sorry Leon, no offence but your posts are often long and circuitous and I tend to skip them. But on your urging I read your post and it is a good one, and poses worthy questions.

Your first question regarding my last comment on jew-baiting is directed towards Richards. My understanding of the morbid fascination created with events such as 911 and Israeli terrorism, is that this is the intended psychological product…it similar to facing death, either in others , such as witnessing a murder; or in oneself, as in being confronted with a murderer, and finding the murderer is not a stranger, but a neighbour with whom one is intimate.  A detached and impartial approach is called for, and a sensitivity towards those who cannot face the reality, a condition which is inevitable.

On a side note, I’d like to get your opinion on this youtube clip;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#!

In regards to other questions regarding Richards, he is not a perfect character, neither are you or I. However limiting commenting to responsible people is worth some sacrifice. And being a responsible person means being able to take criticism, as well as being sensitive in giving criticism. In this I think you should show some maturity and desist in aggression. There are too many bunfights going on, and it drives anyone to exasperation and extreme comments. I think you should set an example by making some sacrifice towards harmony.

I can’t speak about ‘uh’, but concerning Hunter Wallace, while I think he should be encouraged in his work, for he is talented,  I think it should never be forgotten that he has been completely compromised and has not yet been forthright, and has never been forthright about it. He still consorts with known jewish activists, (metalgear and whatever sockpuppets he inhabits, and others) and this should not be forgotten - ever…...ever. And he is an example of what can happen anywhere, and is.

People here seem to have no consciousness that the ‘jew-among-you’ concept is not an idle conspiracy rant. It is reality. Too many people treat ‘Nationalism’ as hobby horse or stress reliever and this is what has regulated it to the ‘lunatic’ fringe…as though proclaiming oneself a ‘Racialist’ or Nationalist is an excuse to act like a idiot. This is where the antics of the hidden ‘jew-among-you’ come in to play by serving as example. This is why the jews are always the biggest anti-semites in any nationalist forum… and Richards should realize he needs to reconsider approaches that the jews smile upon and encourage.
My point is if you call yourself a Nationalist or Racialist, then your duty is to encourage harmony with other like minded people, whatever your incidental disagreement. Doing otherwise is serving as shabbez-goy. And that is meant for you Leon. Indulging yourself in egotistic squabbling is traitorous behaviour.

This forum needs to be cleaned up and if you are the Racialist you claim to be, you should put your shoulder behind it and holster your ego for the good of the cause.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 06:50 AM | #

@Grim

OK civility is good.

But you would agree, I hope, that there have to be some minimum standards of judgemental rationality and an open epistemic stance - that is if someone brings a reasonable but different take on things screaming ‘J-lizard’ like some scared kid to shut down the matter is not helpful in a dialogue aimed, as GW outlined, at going beyond cliche and adding both depth and scope to what is discussed here.

And yes you’re right some of us think that the Linder’s and Richards’ of this world would almost have to be Jewish inventions to make the waters of those topics radioactively toxic. I don’t think they are - the more parsimonious explanation lies in abnormal psychologies/emotional states and general idiocy. They like being ‘marginal’ but for very poor reasons.

Posted by Thorn on February 13, 2012, 07:32 AM | #

On a side note, I’d like to get your opinion on this youtube clip;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#!

Obviously Building 7 was a controlled demolition. No question about it. Was Building 7 Flight 93’s intended target? Most likely it was.

In any event, I think all reasonable people can conclude the Government’s official version of what took place on 9-11 is the most unbelievable one.

J Richards offers a good case for implicating the main characters [Jews]and their motives. However there is another more plausible—even more sinister—explanation of whom was involved and why.

In Philip Marshall’s new book ‘The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror ’ the author delves into his theory on what took place prior to, on the day of, and subsequent to the 9-11 attacks.

Book Description

Publication Date: February 9, 2012

From the perspective of a Boeing 767 captain and former “special activities” contract pilot, Philip Marshall straps the reader into the cockpits of hijacked commercial airliners to tell the story of the most sophisticated terrorist attack in history. After a ten-year study, he explains how hijackers, novice pilots, at the controls of massive guided missiles were able to beat United States Air Force fighters to iconic targets with advanced maneuvering, daring speeds and a Kamikaze finish. But, as Marshall explains, this feat, this tactical plan was so precise that it eliminates car-bombers known as al Qaeda, KSM and Osama bin Laden. So then, who was it? That’s what you are about learn. Backed with official NTSB, FAA and black box recordings, Marshall finds the most capable, most documented group of conspirators buried deep within a Congressional Inquiry’s report and presents it in gripping detail. Fasten your seatbelt—- the sad truth is that all of the solid evidence points to a dark collaboration between members of the Bush Administration and a covert group of Saudi government officials. This is a game changer that will finally set the record straight of the most horrific crime in US history.

Phillip Marshall’s website:

https://thebigbamboozle.com/

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 13, 2012, 09:02 AM | #

I found the introduction to this re-packaged presentation of The Protocols by William Pierce interesting. It claims to be the work of Anonymous.

I was also struck by Pierce’s explanation of how Jews acquired America’s media of mass communication. His statement that they “pooled their resources” hints at his naivety about their ability to simply use their FED to create the money out of nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4L6LbwHWY

Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 09:19 AM | #

CONSPIRACY THEORIES & SECRET SOCIETIES FOR DUMMIES.
By C. Hodapp & A. Von Kannon.
 
What do Skull & Bones, the Kennedys, and UFOs all have in common? Find out here as you discover how to: test a conspiracy theory; spot a sinister secret society; assess the Internet’s role in fueling conspiracy rumors; explore world domination schemes; and evaluate 9/11 conspiracy theories. 362 pages. Published by Wiley.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 13, 2012, 09:55 AM | #

r.e. 9/11

To copy Nixon on Keynesianism, “We’re all conspiracy theorists now”.  The remaining issue is whether one chooses to believe the Jews media-government promoted conspiracy theory or decide that a different conspiracy theory fits the known facts better.

iow, “conspiracy theory” is now mainstream science.

I find it fascinating how fast the 21st Century is discrediting old Jewish canards from the 20th Century.  One of these candards is the “tinfoil hat” ad hominem hurled against anyone suggesting that Jews might collaborate in their common interest, against non-Jews interests, and without announcing the details on prime time TV.

Therefore anyone wishing to challenge J. Richards on 9-11 issues must do so with facts, not empty Jewish-minded insults.

And furthermore, Leon Haller must be banned!

Posted by Thorn on February 13, 2012, 10:04 AM | #

CONSPIRACY THEORIES & SECRET SOCIETIES FOR DUMMIES.
By C. Hodapp & A. Von Kannon.

—

I catch your drift, Leon. And, of course, you are probably right.

Truth be known, my strong belief/default position is to attribute the 9-11 debacle to gross incompetence on the part of our bungling intelligence agencies.

But then again there is the nagging question that surrounds WTC Building 9 ....

In other words,  the case ain’t closed yet.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 13, 2012, 12:18 PM | #

Truth be known, my strong belief/default position is to attribute the 9-11 debacle to gross incompetence on the part of our bungling intelligence agencies.

Taken together, the available testimonies of both FBI agent Coleen Rowley and FBI translator Sibel Edmonds discredit any Stupid Defense for the FBI, the CIA or the Department of Defense.

Rowley in particular is on record stating that prior to 9/11 the FBI Command Post in Washington DC actively aborted field investigations into suspected al Qaida operatives.  Is she the only one?  Bureaucratic reprisal is now so well-established in DC that I can’t believe hers was the only instance.  She’s just the only one who made noise about it.

We suffer from the paucity of facts allowed to us by Israeli-occupied Congress.  So we now have to consider possible explanations for this FBI Command Post behavior.  There is the Keystone Kops explanation. 

Another explanation is the FBI CP had visibility of something that Coleen Rowley wasn’t supposed to know about.  This would be a covert effort aimed at al-Qaida and sanctioned by the very highest political levels.  And the CIA is not a good candidate for this role.  It is prohibited from such domestic operations both by US law and by an FBI that is extremely jealous of its domestic turf.  So this hypothetical operation was most likely conducted by a non-US government entity with US Government approval and FBI support. 

This sort of foreign intelligence activity on US territory, sanctioned by the US Government and facilitated by the highest levels of the FBI, is not without precedent.  See the entire saga of MI-6’s “British Security Coordination” operation in the USA from 1940 to 1942.

So the issue is not whether the US government would dare permit such activity.  The question now is whether it permitted it again.

In the current case “Mossad” is an obvious suspect for the role of foreign covert operator.  And this helps to focus the 9/11 stories about dancing Israelis with cameras and the apparent speed with which the FBI was able to apprehend them.  And then there is the speed with which Michael Chertoff, then heading the DoJ Criminal Division, had them released.

It is not true that there is nothing more to learn about 9/11.  Even a cursory examination of the available facts demonstrates that.

And furthermore, Leon Haller must be banned!

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 13, 2012, 12:49 PM | #

J. Richards,

It seems to me that Coleen Rowley’s statements qualify as #28, “FBI Command Post Aborts Pre-9/11 Anti-Terrorist Investigations”.

Speaking for myself, I don’t see 9/11 scholarship as a useful use of my time and resources.  It’s the central bank problem again.  We’re very unlikely to get control of the compulsive investigatory powers needed to arrive at definitive answers. 

But that doesn’t mean I uncritically accept the US Governments’ and Zionists’ proffered joint conspiracy theory.  And if others choose to work in this field, more power to them.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 13, 2012, 01:17 PM | #

Grimoire @ 157

You weren’t quite as forthcoming as I’d hoped regarding your earlier strictures on the Jews Amongst Us, but let’s pass over that for now since your post raises what I would consider to be a far more salient point:

Has MR advanced Nationalist thought in Britain by one iota?

The answer has to be, regrettably, probably not. There are various theories as to why that should be the case, I think GW is well aware of mine, which I have termed ‘an awkward ecumencalism’ elsewhere.

Do you have a theory too? Hopefully it is rather more sophisticated than the maunderings about Jews under the bed which seem to have gained considerable purchase hereabouts in recent times.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 05:34 PM | #

@G Lister
          Yes, we agree there has to be minimum standards of judgemental rationality…but those minimum standards must be concrete and enforced immediately for the good of all. MR indulges the trolls too readily and this must stop or else MR will continue to slip into the category of controlled opposition.

@J Marr
            Thanks for the link.

@L Haller
            I’m disappointed by your suggested reading list. I recommend you study the title alone for the hidden clue.

@Ex-Pro White Activist
                        I agree challenges empty of fact comprised of troll bait should be deleted, unless it is humorous… a decent gag is good, and it keeps J Marr off the streets.

@Dan Dare
              I was not forthcoming because I am not going to provide security for MR. As for theories and observations, the MR idea (outside of proselytizing for a type of mid-u, materialist, epizootics of the blowhole) was to provide a forum for rational discussion on the Nationalist issue. It is failing in this. My theory is that GW is learning free speech is not a free-for-all, but is not yet convinced enough to take responsibility for the mission, and correct his mistakes.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 13, 2012, 05:54 PM | #

Grimoire, did you really mean to write ‘mid-u’ or should that have been ‘non-U’ (or maybe mid[dle]-brow)? Either of the latter might apply to MR, but the first is unknown to me.

It seems we are not a million miles apart with our diagnoses, however might still differ markedly on the necessary prescription.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 06:11 PM | #

@Grim

Concrete enforcement - by who’s judgement, who’s rationality? Richards and his gang?

Your use of terminology like ‘controlled opposition’ suggested you’re not that rationally grounded yourself. As I asked Richards and recall was met only with total silence and then special pleading about ‘complexity’ - please do outline your procedure and methodology for determining ‘controlled opposition’ - other than people that disagree with you - which doesn’t even come into the same ball-park as judgemental rationality of any sort.

You must have some semi-objective criteria that you can explain to everyone, yes?

Posted by Guessedworker on February 13, 2012, 06:32 PM | #

There is no controlled opposition.  The term is wrongly used to signify a certain ownership by ideas that have issued from or have been fashioned to serve Jewish interests.  Obvious ones are the Holocaust narrative and the faux-morality of anti-racism, but there are many.  Very tragically for the West, the liberal paradigm itself is so cluttered with such ideas, almost anyone who is not definitively anti-liberal will have been infected by them.  They are not all controlled opposition.

But liberalism is oppositional to blood values anyway.  Judaised or not, the same pathologies apply, which is why the greater task for thinking nationalists is to address the systemic replacement of liberalism itself.  “The Jews” are niche fillers.  Take away the system and replace it with a nationalist one, and the niches disappear.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 06:34 PM | #

Dan, ‘non-U’ it is. I’m interested in your prescription. What do you think would correct the problem?

Graham, my description of controlled opposition is anyone who promotes disruption and disunity among nationalists while claiming to have their interests at heart.
Your suggestion that a term like ‘controlled opposition’ is not rationally grounded suggests you are being purposely naive. Don’t generalize from the particular. I’m not speaking of your bunfight with Richards.
Get over it.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 13, 2012, 06:41 PM | #

Grim,

That:

my description of controlled opposition is anyone who promotes disruption and disunity among nationalists while claiming to have their interests at heart.

... is a concern troll.  Controlled opposition is quite different - and very, very rare.  Think Griffin.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 06:48 PM | #

@GWorker

There is no controlled opposition.  The term is used to signify a certain ownership by ideas that have issued from or have been fashioned to serve Jewish interests. (Gworker)

I’m surprised you are that obtuse. ‘Controlled opposition’, means exactly what it says - heavily infiltrated or controlled sites that pretend to be the opposition - in this case Nationalists pretending to oppose the Judaic/Globablist hegemony….while working to reinforce it.

A controlled opposition site generally works to confuse and dilute Nationalism… and handicap and delay any ability to grasp the issues intelligently, and to encourage both disillusionment and excess.

I’m curious as to why you would claim there is ‘no controlled opposition.’ And offer a definition which is a flat-out falsehood.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 06:51 PM | #

Gworker:

... is a concern troll.  Controlled opposition is quite different - and very, very rare.  Think Griffin.

No, many people are the controlled opposition by virtue of their conditioning. They do not need to be working for a wage. They are like pigeons or rats who think they have trained the white-coated humans to offer food everytime they tap a bar.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 06:57 PM | #

controlled opposition is common, it is almost a rule. Think Griffin.

Even Wilders and Le Pen jr. are to a certain extent controlled.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 06:58 PM | #

Perhaps in hypothesizing about “controlled opposition”, concrete examples would be the best jumping off point.

See all of Ivan’s comments on this thread (alone), and then consider mine @125.

Ivan never offers anything substantive. His method is constant ad hominem attack:

@Haller:

And how can one tell who is a Jew?(LH)

It’s not that difficult as you might think, Leon. In fact, this is precisely the area where you present a great asset:

(1) If the commenter’s name is Leon Haller, he is a Jew, or promoting Jewish interests (there is really no difference between the two).
(2) Be suspicious of those who Leon Haller likes and wants them continue doing what they are doing here.
(3) Be suspicious of those who like Leon Haller and think that he has something valuable to contribute (except unwittingly helping to identify the members of the Jew crew).
(4) If a long comment is full of references to kosher “philosophers” that gives you a headache before you even start reading it, then the commenter is kosher.
(5) Watch the language - if it is pretentious and wrapped up in pseudoscientific joggling of words, and if it consists of sentences each of which seems to make sense per se, but they don’t fit well as the pieces of mosaic would - then you know that you are dealing with one of the chosen.(IVAN)

Perhaps this is meant to be humorous. A paean to stupidity. Fine. But everything from Ivan is “humorous”, needling, casting aspersions, trying to pit one against another by emphasizing points of disagreement, and then attributing foul motives as those disagreements’ source (the latter being also the method of JRichards - whose behavior Grimoire is now bizarrely attempting to exculpate). That is a sign of controlled opposition (and not merely trolldom).

Ivan is not what he claims.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 06:58 PM | #

GW re ‘controlled opposition’ in the Richards et al., lexicon was/is more or less a roundabout way of saying bribed/blackmailed to argue against the truth as Richard sees it (because no-one can honestly come any different interpretation of any subject than that individual has – well according to him).

Witness Richards discussion of Kevin MacDonald etc.

If it was just ‘Jewish’ ideas, then if collectively Europeans cannot destroy those arguments we might as well give up now. If some multicultural liberal wants to post comments is anyone honestly ‘scared’ of that?

If it is simply bad behaviour - well as I outlined earlier in this thread that there can be informal mechanisms in place to sensibly judge such matters. Just having a position that people ‘don’t like’ isn’t really enough unless it links into other questionable conduct/attitudes repeated and repeated without change (when specifically asked not to).

Posted by Guessedworker on February 13, 2012, 07:01 PM | #

Grim,

Well, these are just my definitions.  But as I said, think Griffin as someone perhaps owned in some other way, or perhaps just kept in place by forces that know something in his character will unfailingly produce disintegration.

You still exemplified a concern troll, the difference between the two being that a concern troll need not be serving other forces but can be acting in disguise and from personal conviction.

A very few websites are so heavily Judaised they qualify as controlled opposition.  GoV is an obvious one.  But other sites may give out the same message without being controlled in any way.  Brussels Journal is one such, in my opinion.  Culturism and Judeophilia do not prove control.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 13, 2012, 07:05 PM | #

Perhaps we would do well to reserve the term “controlled opposition” for strategically placed parties.  So, few in number but high in damage potential.  I think that makes some sense.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 07:13 PM | #

Well before my last comment on this thread several more had being posted.

OK in the ‘wide sense’ of the term one can question the motives etc., of a Griffin. On balance I’d probably go with the incompetent/cock-up school of thought. But I’m really an outsider to the internal world of these political parties. Black flag operations are not unknown in the world of espionage etc., but I’m not sure how illuminating such a perspective is.

Perhaps I’m naive and MI5 really do have more BNP members than that party has real members but what follows from such a thought? The second guessing of everyone and everything?

Posted by uh on February 13, 2012, 07:19 PM | #

You still exemplified a concern troll, the difference between the two being that a concern troll need not be serving other ends but can be acting in disguise and from personal conviction.

See: Randy Garver.

The urge to persecute is strong in Grimoire. That’s the common psychological streak here, as before — certain people have a psychological bent that has them populating the ether with bought opposition. Ad hoc fallacy among others. Inferring higher agency (note the occurrence of the word ‘possession’ above) from ideological difference (‘madness’).

A more dangerous turn is this:

No, many people are the controlled opposition by virtue of their conditioning. They do not need to be working for a wage.

... which casually blends ‘controlled’ and ‘conditioning’ so that even those who unwittingly channel the narrative can be punished as fully culpable agents of disinformation. But it is absurd because this refers not to people who wander in, snipe a little and wander out, but regulars like Graham and I, so we arrive back at the psychological precondition of this impulse, which is just paranoia.

Grimoire is a little nearer reality though with his insistence on metsada operatives. If Mossad did not have a department for applied psychological warfare, it would be a very curious omission. But to believe it has reached every online venue where one encounters people who don’t disagree with one is, again, paranoia and selective thinking.

Regrettable that we weathered the storm of the Bot’s runaway paranoia only to incur that of the reclusive German-Canadian.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 13, 2012, 07:31 PM | #

...it keeps J Marr off the streets.

Hi Grim,

It’s nice to see posts from you here at MR again.

I will be on the streets (steps of the Capitol building in Sacramento) again on the 27th of this month. My purpose there will be to play the bagpipes as part of a public demonstration to increase awareness of the racial violence against Whites in South Africa.

I’ve been practicing diligently in preparation for this event. Because the pipes are quite loud, I often practice outdoors rather than inside the house. My property line in the rear is hedged by tall, dense bamboo, so I have very little awareness of who or what is behind there.

I learned today that there are people over there, and they to have a limited appreciation for my musical aspirations. 

After this morning’s rendition of Scotland the Brave, a voice yelled to me from somewhere far beyond the hedge, “You’re getting better!”



While not the highest compliment I can imagine, it sure beats a visit from the local police in response to a noise complaint. 

I feel secure in the knowledge that, for the time being, ZOG has no plans to reinstate capital punishment against pipers.

Indefinate detention, on the hand, may eventually prove to be an entirely different matter.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 07:40 PM | #

@uh

Yeah Grim has made the point about organisations recruiting student etc., to go online and basically fuck around. And I said yes sure I’ve seen Youtube clips of various types saying “yes we will defend Israel online” and we all know about online ‘astro-turfing’ etc.

What can anyone of us do but try to sensibly calibrate our BS detectors in semi-rational way? Which has go beyond simply thinking if someone disagrees with them they are ‘the enemy’ and always acting in bad faith. Maybe they are but it can’t be the ‘default’ setting of a BS detector otherwise its readings might be rather off the mark and its resolution rather poor.

Posted by uh on February 13, 2012, 07:41 PM | #

Perhaps this is meant to be humorous. A paean to stupidity.

More like an extended pageantry of pure venom.

Let me remind everyone that Ivan recommended to the Bot that Haller be dispatched like Trotsky, with an ice-pick to the head.

This is the Bot’s numero uno supporter. The Bot said nothing about it. Nor did anyone else except me, strangely.

Choose your friends wisely, Grimoire. Haller might make you want to drive an ice-pick into your own skull but as far as I know effectively calling for the murder of your fellow commenters is both illegal and in extremely poor taste.

Ivan is not what he claims.

Right. The fact is that we are here speaking as we do because we are all Westerners. Despite the rarity of our discourse we are still behaving in that mode.

A ‘Circassian’ does not behave that way because a Circassian is not a European. The equalist illusion is precisely that ‘anyone’ can become anything else — and hey, a Razib Khan might make a good postmodern ‘American’, but how many Circassians have you ever met who were concerned for the fate of European man?

How many Circassians have you met at all?

This harks back to the video of the ‘Jewish’ woman on the bus. I’m from New York, I grew up around Jews, and I’ve lived around them more than any shegetz should ever have to do — so I have quite a bit of experience with Jews, is my point, and I’ve never seen a Jew like that. Moreover she does not resemble any Jewess that I have ever seen. And if it doesn’t look or quack like a duck, well friends, it ain’t a fucking duck!

By the way, schizophrenia — which is what we must call that poor woman’s condition — is no more common among Ashkenazi Jews than among non-Jewish populations:

http://jstandard.com/index.php/content/item/schizophrenia_research_and_the_jews

Note this:

It is important to remember that schizophrenia is not determined only by genetic factors. Environmental factors can play an important role in triggering the disease. They can include obstetric complications, infections, substance abuse, and social adversity. Schizophrenia is also hard to study since its diagnosis is often complex. There is no single symptom or disease-specific marker that permits clear diagnosis. There is also considerable variability in the mode and extent that schizophrenia is expressed in patients.

Hmmm ... substance abuse and social adversity. You think the Jews have a rough time in modern society? ever seen Jews on Cops? were Jews represented in Dalrymple’s Life At The Bottom? what about obstetric complications — if Jews control much of the money supply, do you think Jewish mothers would be at risk there with the excellent natal care they can afford? ditto infections?

Now watch the video again if you have time. Ask yourself where this woman came from and where she is going. Looks to me like she’s homeless, spends a fare amount of time exposed to the elements (doubtless a cold northern city), and shuttles on a public bus (how many Jews you know riding a city bus?) between homeless shelters for free soup.

And guess what: “20% of those diagnosed with schizophrenia are homeless.

It seems to have occurred to none of you gullible Jew-finders that this was just a sick homeless woman who probably wandered into a synagogue for some human comfort: as the homeless, and inmates, are known to do.

Try sleeping outside in a city for a week and I promise you that ‘grace’ will take on a new meaning for you.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 08:10 PM | #

@Jimmy

Nice one – do you know “O Flower of Scotland”?

O flower of Scotland
When will we see your like again?
That fought and died for
Your wee bit hill and glen
And stood against him
Proud Edward’s army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again…

It’s a song about the battle of the Battle of Bannockburn (Blàr Allt a’ Bhonnaich in Scottish Gaelic)  (June 1314) that was the most significant Scottish victory in the Wars of Scottish Independence.

It was the decisive battle in Scottish history – otherwise Scotland would have become north Englishshire; a fate worse than death – apologizes GW – you know I jest

Sorry I can’t help myself my family tree is full of all those Mc and Mac style names.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vkYiCdn834&

Out of interest if the UK does break up, what should replace that damn awful dirge “God Save The Queen?” Perhaps “Land of Hope & Glory”?

@uh

What got me was that anyone thinks that video is anything other than trivia.

Posted by uh on February 13, 2012, 08:10 PM | #

Maybe they are but it can’t be the ‘default’ setting of a BS detector otherwise its readings might be rather off the mark and its resolution rather poor.

It’s just misdirected. Lacking an even playing field with the real enemy, WNs turn on themselves with their rotten personalities. If we could engage the real enemy somehow, this suspicious — paranoid spectrum would work very much in our favor, but the trouble is that once set in motion it tends to keep going ...

You must read case studies of paranoiacs. It’s illuminating.

A very big part of this mental pathology, by the way, is mere vanity — I mean the subject viewing himself as possessing some secret rationale with an explanatory power beyond that of others, and his projection of this onto others in a bid to dominate them dialectically, which is of course a proxy for real physical domination that he cannot achieve.

Guess what? Sexual dysfunction is commonly correlated with paranoid schizophrenic personality:

That sexual dysfunction occurred in
schizophrenia was not in doubt. Persistent
psychosis was associated with reductions in
sexual interest, activity and satisfaction
(Lyketsos et al., 1983). The manifest sexual
relationship problems were due to lack of
social skills and degeneration of social
functioning, rather than to primary,
structural impairment specific to
schizophrenia (Verhulst and Schneidman,
1981), (Michael et al., 2006).

http://www.cpsy.eg.net/pdf/2006/july/4en.pdf

This is NOT to suggest that Richards Bot is a raving lunatic, which is the unfortunate connotation of the word ‘schizophrenic’. The point is that this a man who has clearly taken an asocial turn in life and may be said if nothing to “lack social skills” to a pathological degree, hence his mania.

Now, let’s line them up: Richards Bot, Grimoire, XPWA, GenoType.

What do these men have in common? They are all in their forties — sixties (I guess), one or two married i.e. have fulfilled their purpose and are experiencing an unavoidable drop in testosterone production, all believe passionately that MR has been “taken over” by “Jewish trolls”, but most significantly, all believe themselves to be in possession of a secret.

I know that’s a little foggy but review with me:

- Richards Bot believes he can explain a dormouse’s fart by referring to “Juden” and “Money Power”
- Grimoire, you may remember, used to alluding most cryptically to some secret list of “metsada operatives” or something, I’ve forgotten what exactly
- XPWA and GenoType are well known for always alluding to some grand solution that has something to do with mineral rights, laser printers and earth-ships, no one is certain wot

I may just be connecting some dots to flatter myself. May be. I welcome anyone to come along and disillusion me because heaven knows I can be pretentious. But I think this is at least somewhat relevant to this accretion into suspicious (close-minded) and not so suspicious (open-minded) psychological groups.

By the way, I once e-mailed briefly with GenoType. After some preliminary autobiography I asked if he could help me find work, as he had given himself out as being well-connected somehow.

I never heard from him again.

Graybeards!

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 13, 2012, 08:13 PM | #

as far as I know effectively calling for the murder of your fellow commenters is both illegal and in extremely poor taste.

Nope. I tried to file a report with both my local police and the Portland Police Department after someone on a Portland anti-White website suggested dealing with my wife and I through the sites of a high-powered rifle.

I was merely trying to document the threat so that if I was later forced to defend my wife or myself there would be some justification for my higher than normal level of vigilance.

Both police departments refused to take a report. So, unless Haller really is a special person, I think Ivan is probably guilty of nothing more than poor taste.

I suggest you don’t make a conspiracy case out of it, Uh. That stuff gets old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch94AACpevw&feature=related

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 08:33 PM | #

@uh

It’s really a case or the mad, bad or sad. It doesn’t matter too much what the precise combination is, the exhausting and deflationary effects are much the same.

I hope when I argue something I do try to do so with some type of sound reasoning and/or germane facts, observations etc. Yes I can get into ‘piss-taking’ mode but it is generally used to emphasis an important point.

But for some on the other tendency this makes me - and I quote “evil”. Seriously? What’s worse that or my being a ‘pseudo-intellectual’?

It takes all sorts I guess.

Posted by Reshekel Tootberg on February 13, 2012, 08:34 PM | #

Our resident Freudian should perhaps become familiar with the psychological phenomena of projection.

Psychology is a quack pseudoscience.

Posted by MajorityRichards on February 13, 2012, 08:50 PM | #

Maybe this is the real issue for Richards and his posse…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKjvOTZXvoY

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 13, 2012, 10:17 PM | #

Talking of “The Flaming Lips” some of their song titles seem oddly apposite of l’affaire Richards.

I’ve highlighted some of my favourites – enjoy!

Anything You Say Now, I Believe You
Aquarius Sabotage
Are You a Hypnotist? [George’s Photogenic Stimulation Theory ...]
At the Fish Fry and the Bigot’s Drunk
Bad Days
Bag Full of Thoughts
Borderline
Brain Damage
Chosen One (Smog cover)
Chrome Plated Suicide
Cold Day in Hell
Communication Breakdown
Convinced of the Hex
Do You Realize?
Drug Machine in Heaven
Ego Tripping at the Gates of Hell
Enthusiasm for Life Defeats Existential Fear
Everything’s Exploding
Evil
Evil Will Prevail
Feeling Yourself Disintegrate
Fight Test
Five Stop Mother Superior Rain
Free Radicals (A Hallucination of the Christmas Skeleton Pleading with a Suicide Bomber)
Galactic Melancholy
Girl with Hair Like an Explosion
Guy Who Got a Headache and Accidentally Saves the World
Hari-Krishna Stomp Wagon (Fuck Led Zeppelin)
Haven’t Got a Clue
Hell’s Angels Cracker Factory
Hold Your Head
How Will We Know? (Futuristic Crashendos)
I Was Zapped by the Lucky Super Rainbow
I’m a Fly in a Sunbeam (Following the Funeral Procession of a Stranger)
I’m Afraid of Dying . . . Aren’t You??
If I Go Mad (Funeral in My Head)
If I Only Had a Brain
In the Morning of the Magicians
It Overtakes Me/The Stars Are So Big, I Am So Small . . . Do I Stand a Chance?
Jesus Shootin’ Heroin
Knives Out
Let Me Be It
Life on Mars?
Lightning Strikes the Postman
Love the World You Find
Lucifer Rising
Man from Pakistan
March of the Rotten Vegetables
Marching the Hate Machines (Into the Sun)
Maximum Dream for Evil Knievel
Maybe I’m Not the One
Michael, Time to Wake Up
Money
My Cosmic Autumn Rebellion (The Inner Life as Blazing Shield of Defiance and Optimism as Celestial Spear of Action)
Nobody Told Me
Ode to C.C. (Part 1)
Ode to C.C. (Part 2)
Okay I’ll Admit That I Really Don’t Understand
On the Run
Once Beyond Hopelessness
One More Robot
Phoebe Battles the Pink Robots
Pilot Can at the Queer of God
Placebo Headwound
Plastic Jesus
Powerless
Prescription: Love
Protonilus Death March
Psychiatric Explorations of the Fetus with Needles
Race for the Prize
Redneck School of Technology
Revenge
Riding to Work in the Year 2025 (Your Invisible Now)
Slow Nerve Action
Spongebob & Patrick Confront the Psychic Wall of Energy
Suddenly Everything Has Changed
Suicide and Extraordinary Mistakes
Talkin’ ‘Bout the Smiling Deathporn Immortality Blues (Everyone Wants to Live Forever)
Thank You Jack White (For the Fiber-Optic Jesus That You Gave Me)
The Abandoned Hospital Ship
The Big Ol’ Bug Is the New Baby Now
The Deterioration of the Fight or Flight Response
The Distance Between Mars and the Earth (Part 1)
The Distance Between Mars and the Earth (Part 2)
The Distress Signals of Celestial Objects
The Ego’s Last Stand
The Gold in the Mountain of Our Madness
The Horrors of Isolation: The Celestial Dissolve, Triumphant Hallucination, Light Being Absorbed
The Impulse
The Magician vs. the Headache
The Observer
The Process
The Secret of Immortality: This Strange Feeling, This Impossible World
The Sound of Failure/It’s Dark… Is It Always This Dark??
The Southern Oklahoma Cosmic Trigger Contest
The Spontaneous Combustion Of John
The Strange Design of Conscience
The Supreme Being Teaches Spider-Man How to Be in Love
The Train Runs Over the Camel but Is Derailed by the Gnat
They Punctured My Yolk
Thirty-Five Thousand Feet of Despair
Time Travel… Yes!!
U.F.O. Story
UFOs Over Baghdad
Unconsciously Screamin’
Unplugged
Us and Them
Virgo Self-Esteem Broadcast
Watching the Planets
We Can’t Predict the Future
What Does It Mean?
What Is the Light? 
Why Does It End?
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots Pt. 1
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots Pt. 2
You Have to Be Joking (Autopsy of the Devil’s Brain)
Your Spaceship Comes from Within

Posted by Leon Haller on February 13, 2012, 10:21 PM | #

unless Haller really is a special person (Jimmy Marr)

alas, Jimmy, alas, alas ... maybe in my own mind, perhaps - will that get me protection from Ivan the Terrible?

Re the R-Bot, we must keep uppermost in mind that the real issue is not the man’s questionable psychological state, or even general unpleasantness (which he then projects onto others who exhibit the effrontery to disagree substantively with him), but rather his (former, we hope) admin power at MR. The Bot can criticize me as much as he wants, and I can respond as I want. That’s part of open expression, forensics, etc. But only Botman has ever exhibited a willingness and ability to nix others’ comments. And the Bot has also been one of the few with posting privileges, which he then abused by loading up on ‘news’ the purpose of which was not to advance nationalism, at least as many might understand such a task, but to steer the conversation in directions led by him and favoring his idiosyncratic set of concerns. Bot’s abusiveness, in other words, was passive as well as active.

And this all is quite apart from his ostensible nationalist sincerity, for which we have GW’s word. Sincerity is fine as far as it goes, but a man must have something more to be deemed suited to his position.

Recall (the very sane) Burke on the Jacobins:

So manifest are their failures, they take credit for their intentions.

Let the Jacobots learn to honor the rules of Occidental civilized discourse, or otherwise retire from the fray.

Posted by Grimoire on February 13, 2012, 10:43 PM | #

@uh
      I am not a graybeard,  I’m not Canadian, my testosterone seems to be fine, and I can’t help you find work.

@G Lister
            the metsada angle is slightly blown out of proportion. My purpose was to return some degree of sanity to the threads. When I checked here, on a lark a few days ago… I found unmitigated chaos and stupidity unbound… which I feared would unravel into complete anarchy and dissolution, otherwise I would have went on my merry way.  I suppressed Ivan and supported Richards in banning people who would not restrain themselves. The purpose was to return some sanity to the house. I still support standards in the comment threads, and I don’t plan to contribute here until this is enacted.
About the metsada online effort, this information I provided links to in a thread some months ago, links to the actual organization and recruiting efforts, (not reports or wiki pages) I don’t know if any of you checked those links, if not I’m somewhat disappointed. If you had what I have been saying would be clear. Those sites have all been scraped and taken down now. I like to think I’ve helped in accomplishing that.
MR is not really that important to the likes of college-age or otherwise unemployable would-be metsada ‘agents’, and that’s nothing to be proud of, unfortunately.
My reservoir of ‘vitriol’ is towards why there is nothing going on here but squabbling and bunfights, and why you haven’t turned your ‘bullshit’ detectors around on yourselves. ‘Uh’ finds this pathological and does a Dr. Fraud treatment on the question… his $0.10 conclusion; the paranoid make him paranoid…and it’s probably sexual dysfunction at that.

@J Marr
          I’d almost like to be there to hear you play…(almost,) unfortunately I will be way up on the mountains on that date. That’s sure to raise awareness, and very gentlemanly and aware of you to make that effort. I’ve always thought a gentleman was someone who knows how to play the bagpipes, (but chooses not to…) but I’m sure you’ve heard that one before.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 13, 2012, 10:47 PM | #

Speaking of natural born killers on this site reminds me of something: Where, in the heck, has Danielj disappeared to?

(que scary music)

And, who was the last person to see him alive, Uh?

And, was that before or after you wrote to renneR that you might have to seriously hurt him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA9t1nSGXXE

Posted by uh on February 13, 2012, 11:07 PM | #

The purpose was to return some sanity to the house. I still support standards in the comment threads, and I don’t plan to contribute here until this is enacted.

Newsflash!

You’re a cunt.

Posted by Ivan on February 13, 2012, 11:32 PM | #

Concrete enforcement - by who’s judgement, who’s rationality? Richards and his gang? (Graham_Lister)

All depends on what exactly MR wants to accomplish. If it’s the defense of the interests of European peoples, and gentiles in general, then, yes, Richards and his gang’s judgment is the only option available right now to MR. If it’s the advancement of the interests of the Jews, well, then you have no shortage of excellent choices, Haller’s and uh’s being near the top.

Btw, I am still waiting for the list of your intellectual contributions.

Ivan is not what he claims. (Leon Haller)

Ivan is exactly what he claims.

More like an extended pageantry of pure venom. (uh)

pure venom is a poor choice of words. The right word is pesticide.

A ‘Circassian’ does not behave that way because a Circassian is not a European.(uh)

A ‘Circassian’ behaves as a Circassian because he is a Circassian.

The equalist illusion is precisely that ‘anyone’ can become anything else (uh)

Precisely: A Jew cannot become a gentile, let alone a Circassian.

... but how many Circassians have you ever met who were concerned for the fate of European man? How many Circassians have you met at all? (uh)

My guess is that each one of you has met one Circassian and only one, and that one is concerned for the fate of European man. I see it this way: 100% of all Circassians you have ever met in your life are concerned for the fate of European man b/c they know: If the Jews will succeed in dissolving ethnic Europeans, the task of preserving their own ethnic identity will become much harder for the Circassians.

as far as I know effectively calling for the murder of your fellow commenters is both illegal and in extremely poor taste. (uh)

As far as I know calling for effective extermination of leeches and parasites is both legal and prudent; it is not a matter of taste, but rather that of necessity.

Emily, Helvena, now I can take you on that triple date we talked about in private. I hope you like pasta, my lovelies. ‘Cause that’s all this Jew can afford his Nordic harem. Now, go change your panties. (uh)

Is that what you meant when you said: The fact is that we are here speaking as we do because we are all Westerners. Despite the rarity of our discourse we are still behaving in that mode?

You know that you owe these fine ladies an apology don’t you, mother fucker. One of the most disgusting traits of man’s character I can think of is resort to denigrating women in order to establish himself.

Posted by anon on February 14, 2012, 02:35 AM | #

General point, if you hang round with leftwingers any time you’ll know that a percentage of the Jewish ones like to fuck around at places like Stormfront for sport. Unless you want to drive yourself nuts playing whack-a-mole the best thing is to either ignore it or use it to your advantage somehow e.g. practise for arguing back in the world.

Perhaps I’m naive and MI5 really do have more BNP members than that party has real members but what follows from such a thought? The second guessing of everyone and everything?

Organizing and operating in such a way that having loads of paid government moles makes you more effective e.g. don’t centralise, compartmentalise and engage in activities which can only be helped by lots of state-subsidized activists e.g. a relentless culture of critique.

What got me was that anyone thinks that video is anything other than trivia.

I thought it was pretty interesting. “May your grin turn to blood” etc - she must have got it from somewhere - and all very middle-eastern sounding i thought.

Posted by Grimoire on February 14, 2012, 02:58 AM | #

@anon
          it’s traditional for jewish women to sit (often in communal baths) their mitsvah and place curses on gentiles…it’s a once a month orthodox Jewish ritual practice (done while cleansing after menstruation, which is the ritual time for women to place curses) The woman was Jewish, from a orthodox family, on account of her low intelligence she revealed what she should not. Notice she recites curses in yiddish. It’s part of their heritage.

Posted by anon on February 14, 2012, 03:41 AM | #

@Grimoire

it’s a once a month orthodox Jewish ritual practice (done while cleansing after menstruation, which is the ritual time for women to place curses)

Ah, interesting. That makes a lot of sense actually from an anthro point of view - expelling the blood curse onto outsiders.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 14, 2012, 05:51 AM | #

Look there is difference from a ‘malevolent neutrality’  - designing in fact to keep an often extremely superficial and clichéd orthodoxy in place - and a genuine neutrality. Majority Richards would obviously not be the intellectually open project as outlined by GW.

On the video - some ‘Richards people’ (dc et al.) seemed to think it would ‘shake the world to its core’ in some way. And the ‘noise faction’ was attempting to divert people from this crucial evidence.

Really? 99% of mainstream Mr. & Mrs. Averages would probably respond thus; “what a shame, another crazy person on a bus” and think nothing more of it. I think if you think otherwise you might need to expand your circle of acquaintances to include regular people.

Do Jewish women curse others when ‘on the rag’? - I don’t know, I don’t care. What precisely is one meant to do with such information? Where does it fit into an analytically powerful critique of the pathologies of liberal modernity?

Posted by Grimoire on February 14, 2012, 07:18 AM | #

@G Lister
          Graham, you’re not making sense. You’re babbling.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 14, 2012, 08:57 AM | #

Matt Parrott speaks out!

Posted by anon on February 14, 2012, 01:18 PM | #

Do Jewish women curse others when ‘on the rag’? - I don’t know, I don’t care. What precisely is one meant to do with such information? Where does it fit into an analytically powerful critique of the pathologies of liberal modernity?

I have no opinion on the main argument i found it interesting from an anthropological point of view.

Posted by Grimoire on February 14, 2012, 10:07 PM | #

And you can read a lot into it. This woman was obviously too stupid to originate any of the ideas….she’s babbling like a parrot or (for us) a tape-recorder….projecting the words and attitudes of others that have impressed her. It’s an almost holographic replay of her impression of powerful women who are connected to powerful men within her circle (NY Jewish) and who she respects in an almost exaggerated sense. This is why she has an exaggerated view of her own power, and in her retarded fashion, actively curses gentile people on the bus in the belief she is omnipotent…an attitude she was impressed with during her mitsvah…(she alludes to that in one section - that the curses are part of her mitsvah). She is inadvertantly our tape-recorder.

And what we can read from the woman who where in her last mitzvah is an exaggerated certainty in their curse on the gentiles. It suggests they are right now actively engaged, without regard to visibility in ripping off as much as they can….and they mean to bring the house of cards down soon. There is a lot of intelligence in that clip if you look for it. It’s a window into the inner world of NY jews.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 14, 2012, 11:39 PM | #

Contrary to their portrayal by Leon Hallister and Anglotones, most Jews are extremely modest.

Posted by Robert Reis on February 22, 2012, 04:01 AM | #

Monday, February 20, 2012
New Evidence for 9/11 Terror Drills
New Evidence Reveals Half of Pilots Were Only Assigned to 9/11 Flights at the Last Minute:

Thomas McGuinness, the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 11 before it became the first plane to be hijacked in the 9/11 attacks, only assigned himself to be on the flight the afternoon before September 11, 2001, and pushed from it the original co-pilot, who had put his name down for the flight less than half an hour earlier. This new information means that, curiously, half of the pilots and co-pilots originally at the controls of the four aircraft involved in the attacks are now known to have been assigned to the doomed flights at the last minute, very shortly before September 11. Additionally, more than half of the flight attendants and many of the passengers are known to have, similarly, not originally been booked onto those flights.

The details of McGuinness’s late assignment to Flight 11 were revealed recently by Steve Scheibner, who was originally going to be the plane’s co-pilot. In a short film released on the Internet just before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, Scheibner described how McGuinness came to replace him on Flight 11 and thereby saved his life.
These findings of course, fit perfectly into a scenario where 9/11 involved hijacking drills with real planes and people, where most of the people involved in the flights—the pilots, copilots, flight attendants and passengers- were scripted ahead of time to be involved. How else to explain this INCREDIBLE fact of so many people getting onto these flights at the last minute, and also the mostly empty planes? This is a real smokiing gun, for anyone who is still undecided about what happened.
posted by spooked at 8:47 PM