Comments posted

Page 1 of 3500 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

Gavin Langmuir wrote:

On History, Religion, and Anti-Semitism: The Legacy of Gavin Langmuir

March 31, 2015 — Andrew Joyce

  ‘A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within….for the traitor appears not to be a traitor…he rots the soul of a nation…he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.’  - Cicero

One of the major themes explored at TOO is that the onslaught on Whites and their culture is massively incentivized. In particular, Kevin MacDonald has pointed out that the multicultural left has created a context “in which many Whites benefit financially from the process of White displacement.” One example is that of White businessmen who are handsomely rewarded in the short-term by immigration because it lowers labor costs. But in the longer-term, these same businessmen are cooperating directly in their own eventual displacement, and helping create a future world in which their genetic descendants will occupy a vulnerable, and probably horrific, role as a victimized minority. MacDonald also pointed to the role played by Whites at colleges and universities, where:

  professors who want to move into lucrative positions in administration must be warriors on behalf of non-Whites.  A noteworthy example is Mary Sue Coleman, who earns north of $900,000/year as the president of the University of Michigan and has been a leader in attempting to preserve racial preferences and in promoting the educational benefits of diversity. … At a lower level on the academic food chain, one of the most important criteria for professors is whether they can obtain government grants which then pay them extra salary and pay the university for the costs of administering the grant — a major source of funding for the university and a major factor in tenure decisions. Right now there is a lot of money in grants aimed at improving the educational prospects of Blacks and Latinos and no shortage of White professors eager to get their hands on that money.

The fact that taking part in the diminishment of White demographics, culture and political power is incentivized really can’t be stressed enough. It’s also important to note that it takes place on many levels of society, and on smaller scales. Rewards can be promotions, job opportunities, or even just increased esteem within one’s social or professional circle. To illustrate these more subtle examples, in this essay I want to offer a brief survey of the life and work of a White academic who enjoyed good, but unspectacular, success in his career until he styled himself an historian of “Jewish-Christian relations.” After a number of articles and influential books essentially exonerating Jews of any wrong-doing in their history, and mercilessly pathologizing Whites and Western culture, this academic found himself the darling of the Jewish academic establishment, lavished with plaudits, prizes and esteem. It’s the quintessential story of how taking part in the war on Whites can bring with it an abundance of temporary rewards.

This comment appeared in entry 'The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 2' on 04/01/15, 01:26 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

neil vodavzny wrote:

It’s the classical attributes of Bruce Lee I’m pursuing. His phrase “a war between a robot and a wild beast” to define his fighting “style”, actually he calls no-style. What I understand it to mean is the technical or learnt is a limitation without the instinct, somewhat like you find in classical sculptures. A type of imperfection that is ideal. I tend to feel modernism strives for perfection..and it’s all wrong.

This comment appeared in entry 'Ancient and Modern - Part 3' on 03/31/15, 11:13 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Agreed wrote:


This comment appeared in entry 'Ancient and Modern - Part 3' on 03/31/15, 08:40 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Guessedworker wrote:

Willem Kalf, however, is unbelievable:

This comment appeared in entry 'Ancient and Modern - Part 3' on 03/31/15, 08:37 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

MR Review of Bruce Lee wrote:

“I’m starting a “physical ‘zine’ pursuing this and other topics (pop-culture and Bruce Lee). MR is giving a review with details.”

What MR might think of Bruce Lee and his movies: it can scarcely be said that there are a great percentage of subjects more boring and unimportant (Besides Orientals, it is primarily Puerto Ricans and blacks who like that stuff).

The classical and medieval music is good but the Windsor-Smith illustrations not very.

This comment appeared in entry 'Ancient and Modern - Part 3' on 03/31/15, 04:48 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Adrian Davies on World War I wrote:

Adrian Davies’ take on World War I - military planners thought this war would be quick, decisive and with limited participation, as with previous wars.

....blames Russia’s perceived need to come to the side of Serbia (and therefore oppose both Austria and Germany of necessity) as opposed to Britain’s perceived need to come to the aid of Belgium and France as the key to instigating World War I

...does acknowledge that Germany took rightful French territory in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, thus generating a chronic enemy of France.

...that the German high seas fleet bombarded several towns on the eastern coast of England (such as), Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby (which took place on 16 December 1914)...not an episode that reflects at all well on the honor of German arms….that the German navy had essentially bombarded towns of little strategic importance, killed quite a large number of civilians, then ran away before the British navy could catch up with it.

...calls Hastings “the most virulent ‘Germanophobe’ he’s ever come across”

..while downplaying the cause of Belgium. ..does mention the killing of civilians for mis-perceived resistance but relativizes this by suggesting that since France had the same contingency plan of going through Belgium that if they’d acted on that plan (which, unlike Germany, they did not, at Britain’s demand) they would have acted with the same brutality against its civilians and civil structures that Germany did.

...endorses Mark Weber’s view.

Davies must be a Regnery delegate


This comment appeared in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 03/31/15, 01:23 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

O'keefe, anti-war actionist wrote:

Susan interviews anti-war activist, KEN O’KEEFE: Anti-War Action on the Rise

covertreport | Mar 29, 2015

Internationally reknowned anti-war leader, KEN O’KEEFE joins us today for a wide ranging discussion of War & Peace in America’s Imperialist World, and the changing paradigm as Washington enters a condition of steep, permanent decline. We talk about the State of Israe, the election of Bibi Netanyahu, the “devil we know,” and the implosion of American security as a result of chasing the vision of a Greater Israel, which has accelerated the collapse of Washington’s power on the global stage. Ken O’Keefe is an Irish-Palestinian citizen and former U.S. Marine veteran who attempted to renounce US citizenship in 2001. O’Keefe led the human shield action in Baghdad before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. He was also a passenger on the MV Mavi Marmara during the Gaza flotilla raid. O’Keefe delivers a beautiful testimonial to the paradox of the rise of activist power in the moment that Washington is faltering. He discusses the path to action that all of us have the capacity to take. You’ll understand why Kenneth O’Keefe is one of my all-time personal heroes.

This man’s position on race in America is extremely shallow.

- claims that blacks are mistreated in America, rather than the fact, which is that they’ve been given trillions and carte blanche to attack, pilfer and claim White civic resources, social capital and evolution as their entitlement, while Whites have been bound from defending themselves and their co-evolutionaries from them.

A “peace actionist”, he ignores the vast and hideously violent war on Whites - particularly by blacks - and the hideous cover-up of that, particularly by Jews and their controlled liberal lackeys.

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 03/30/15, 07:15 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Dugin contra liberalism wrote:

Dugin discusses his strategies and concepts for combating world liberal hegemony.

Alexander Dugin - anti-liberal “tradtionalism” without race or “racism” ????

He does make a very good point about gender identity, that homo advocacy is not an arbitrary advocacy, as it is a point of attack on the last group attachment (gender) which might oppose liberal-individual “self creation.”

...and he started off showing some hope of understanding what White post modernity means, but then reverted to his prior acceptance of the Jewish “da da” definition of “post modernity”

A darling, clever, bullshit artist - anti-liberal “tradtionalism” without race or “racism”??? - while having some good and extensive feral roots to his thinking; has nevertheless become, I suspect, a hope primarily among those who long for something like a return of “Molotov-Ribbentrop” to oppose England and the USA.

This comment appeared in entry 'Individualism's Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister' on 03/30/15, 06:30 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Greg, guest, on how to handle "racism" wrote:

Greg and Hugh MacDonald discuss how to deal with the word “racism” and being called “a racist”

They make some arguments that I have made, especially Greg, but that is of course not to say that people cannot come up with the same arguments, especially someone like Greg - it is, after all, largely a matter of logic - and if I have contributed some thoughts on the matter that others are developing, well, that’s good.

In this discussion, I agree more with Greg (though not perfectly with him either) while Hugh makes some good points.

This comment appeared in entry 'MR Radio: Greg Johnson talks to GW and Daniel' on 03/30/15, 12:25 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

You know I am no advocate of that, Graham:

“As long as it is healthy, the American constitutional tradition will give rise to competing opinions”

Because it is Cartesian, the American Constitution will always give rise to competing opinions and an ever elusive foundational quest to still and stay the abyss ....searching for its solutions where? perhaps in a point somewhere in one’s head?

The only thing I believe that you misunderstood about my endorsing “freedom” (in the DNA Nation) particularly for the American context and those Europeans in, or subject to, diaspora, is that it provides a difficult basis for our liberal enemies to argue against as we attempt to gravitate to our natural own kinds.

I don’t defend The U.S. Constitution and you are quite welcome to lambast it. Perhaps we can provide you a good foil to do so, if that is what you mean.

You should understand, however, that while I was an iconoclast in doing so myself, among “White Nationalists” back in 2009, now it is virtually expected, commonplace for WN to denounce the Constitution as a solution; and while Hitler has gained disproportionately as the go-to “answer man”, defenders of the Constitution have become the freakish minority among WN

Not that there aren’t plenty of uninitiated and experts, even, who need to hear your criticisms of The US, its Constitutional liberalism and liberalism generally; your critiques of that are important, even if they do lack a tad of sympathy* for some who’ve been burdened under Cartesian illusion, the duplicitous language games of Jews and the cruel experience of females in those ultra fickle circumstances.

* I mean, look at what you are doing to these poor Americans. They are freaking-out.
        The 1976 Olympic Decathlon Gold Medalist,  Bruce Gender

It’s time again for that talk about the dark side of “self actualization.”

This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/30/15, 05:59 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

As long as it is healthy, the American constitutional tradition will give rise to competing opinions about the laws and public policies necessary to secure freedom—and not only in regard to racial preferences. For this reason, Mill’s progressive liberalism and Burke’s conservative liberalism, along with the life of the larger liberal tradition of which they are outstanding parts, deserve the careful attention of those dedicated to the preservation and improvement of constitutional government in America.

Read more:
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Danny & GW perhaps MR should have more about the American vision of freedom to statisfy our more liberal readers?

This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/30/15, 05:40 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

“Exactly so, Daniel! Brian seems to be a nice fellow who therefore deserves a fair warning. That is part of Bodhicittam!”

            Best, Christian

This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/30/15, 04:10 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I was frankly a little concerned about being snitchlike, and would not have said anything had this guy not made a highly public video of himself. Thus, he deserved fair warning, and I believe Christian and I acted ethically to try to help him back off of that path.

Christian sends an email of concern for the fellow traveler, calling him back from a wrong and dangerous turn:

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 7:18 AM

Subject: Therevâda and Holo - Lindtner on Majority Radio

Hello Brian Ruhe,

I became aware of what you have to say about Holocaust and Buddhism, and thought you might be interested in listening to the interview I recently gave to Majority Radio regarding these topics.

Good if you can inspire students to take up Pâli. The Reader of Dines Andersen is a good start.

Best wishes

Christian Lindtner (Denmark)


This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/30/15, 03:25 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

“communism” the anti-nature vs. “NS” the nature - a false either/or

Andrew Anglin: “How could Hitler have done so well if he had allowed women to his decision making table?”

Here is what is not negotiable - the race and its boundaries. After that you might want to establish some basic justice for members (i.e. of both genders).

There have been matriarchies (not that I would want to live in one - have had enough of that, thanks)...and I’m willing to have women step-up if they are committed to guarding the borders and they have a concern and understanding of what is just and necessary for Europeans of both genders.

That includes understanding that there are logical reasons why men have been almost exclusively represented in leadership roles but also at the bottom of the heap in a “natural” society; and why then, we might consider (and have considered) mediating rule structures to correct imbalances some in order to protect homeostasis of social capital.

I doubt Hitler’s war, a war which Anglin seeks again, did any good for gender relations and the preservation of masculinity. Quite the opposite.

Hitler, and by proxy, Anglin, would propose Hitler’s world view as “natural” and communism as “unnatural” - a simple binary choice, to get us caught up between the two “opposites.”

The hermeneutic world view treats the one side - let’s say the race, or what I like to call the class, as synonymous with race but without the scientistic baggage - as a working hypothesis: that does not mean it is not real or negotiable at its borders.  For us, it is not negotiable - male/female, it doesn’t matter at that point. For either gender, if you want breeding outside the class/the race and members of other classes/races to be able to dwell amongst, then you are out of this nation.

This “communist” side of working-hypotheses, the organization of a social group into a classification (a “race”) can, probably should represent (compared to the “natural side”) a smaller margin of reality, of cultural, social rules, the borders of the class being its non-negotiable baseline.

Now, the reason why females have generally and rightfully not been entrusted to look after the race is because they do have a natural inclination to incite genetic competition and to get-off on breeding with the winner, race irrespective.

These brute, natural facts must be taken into account, but especially as they are manipulated by Jewish rules and pandering. Though also by the naiive pandering of wailing modernists looking to return to a “natural state” of gender relations, only to perpetuate the runaway of modernity, and its rupture of “unnatural” social classificatory bounds, as further instigated by Jews - “you don’t want any of that ‘post modernity’ stuff” (which would allow for the “fiction” of hermeneutics, the assertion of the class, the race - White post modernity properly understood).

It must also be understood that it has been a correction - “natural, unnatural”?  - to reserve positions of leadership and important decision making for males both as compensation for males being up against harsher tests (in that role for obvious, practical reasons) and for the fact that if they can make it through, they more often bring to bear more rigorous ability and knowledge.

However, there can be problems in over compensation and that is one reason to return to a critique of the dark side of actualization (and there, feminism) along with its propensity for sociopathology, its actualization of the individual at the expense of the social classificatory bounds, for its “natural truth” or whatever be damned excuse, especially as taken to runaway through the U.S. experiment In “civil individual rights” contra (White) classification and Jewish machinations behind.

By contrast, the parameters of the classification need to be set as a working hypothesis - our system and constituents are then invariably subject to laws of nature (which might otherwise be exploited and pandered to by Jews et al), but can also be tested deliberately or subject to hypotheses of rules which might improve individual and systemic functioning by our own lights.

Recent posts of Graham’s considerations touched upon the fact that we are not born into a state of raw “nature.” That we are social creatures.

I have frankly never been very interested in Hitler or his philosophy, seeing him quite the opposite of Anglin, not as a success but a catastrophic failure. But it is evident that Hitler’s philosophy erred in this pseudo “natural” direction.

Jews have been playing a game to exaggerate and turn people off to normal corrections, organization on the “unnatural” social and “communist” side, even reversing the social corrective* side, a fact I’ve observed and explained repeatedly.

I’m not so sure that they’d be happy with a Hitlerian world view gaining popularity again, but they might just prefer our people diverted into that again as opposed to gaining our bearings as healthy, homeostatic systems and individuals.

I’ll return to homeostasis of gender relations/ actualization, probably next essay.

* The latest example is that they have our people arguing against “social justice warriors”.  As if these “warriors” represent social justice and as if being a true social justice warrior is not a good thing (while arguing against social justice bound to turn-off any halfway decent person).

This comment appeared in entry 'MajorityRadio: Susan Lindauer talks with Daniel and GW' on 03/30/15, 12:57 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Asylum seekers in Italy surge wrote:

Italy sees record asylum requests as migrant centers fill with would-be refugees

SIRACUSA, Sicily –  As Italy copes with record number of migrants making the risky trip across the Mediterranean to reach European shores, it is also registering a record number of political asylum requests, filling migrant holding centers with would-be refugees hoping that their cases are accepted.

For years, refugees have often passed through Italy en route to northern European countries where more established migrant communities offer better job opportunities. But the U.N. refugee agency reported this week that the number of asylum requests submitted in Italy rose 148 percent in 2014 over the previous year, far surpassing Italy’s previous all-time high in 2011 when some 40,000 people sought refugee status there during the Arab Spring.

In all, some 63,700 people requested asylum in Italy in 2014, making Italy the No. 5 country for asylum requests after Germany, the U.S., Turkey and Sweden, according to the report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

While Syrians and Eritreans are the most common nationalities of people arriving by boat on Italian shores, they tend to travel on. The top asylum-seekers in Italy in 2014 were instead from Mali, with 9,800 requests, followed by Nigeria and Gambia.

“If I think about it I want to cry because I have no money, not even these clothes are mine,” Landing Sono, a 25-year-old from Senegal, said this week at the “Umberto I” migrant holding center in Siracusa, Italy.

He is one of 195 African men trapped in a limbo at the center: The men are free to leave and walk around the town, but if they flee before they have appeared before an asylum hearing, they will lose their chance to get it.

This comment appeared in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 03/29/15, 11:48 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

HBD, KM and medieval wrote:

HBD Chick:

Just to let you know, when regularly scheduled programming resumes, the plan is to first respond to kevin macdonald’s post from january(!), and then — hang on to your great helms! — the blog is going to go completely medieval for a few weeks, as i want to get going on my promised series on manorialism and take a look at some of the data/historical evidence for the decline of violence in europe during the middle ages.

This comment appeared in entry 'The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 2' on 03/29/15, 01:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Lindtner + Humphreys wrote:

Christian Lindtner and Kenneth Humphreys to appear in international conference:

FYI: There will be an important international conference on the New Testament in Roskilde, June 21-24, 2015

Gospel Interpretation and Q-Hypothesis.

Ken Humphreys and Christian Lindtner will be attending.

This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/29/15, 02:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

To the bottom wrote:

By that comment I did not intend to distract from the point of GW’s piece by suggesting that a mere “psychological phenomenon” such as diffused responsibility or the bystander effect was at bottom…

Though as deployed social psychology, it is more to the point.

As a matter of fact, the part of the Jewish controlled wikipedia quote that I left out is telling in terms of their control:

“The common portrayal of her neighbors as being fully aware of what was transpiring but completely unresponsive has since been criticized as inaccurate. Nonetheless, that portrayal prompted investigation”...

The point being that they don’t want you, Joe White Public, to be too keenly and critically aware of social psychological phenomenon (and who is in control) which, if treated with strongly warranted assertability, might work in White interests.

This comment appeared in entry 'The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 2' on 03/29/15, 02:26 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Gordian Knot of "Civil Rights" wrote:

Keith Alexander details Jewish influence behind the duplicitous “civil rights movement”

“Thurgood Marshal is wrongly given credit as a mastermind, while the true mastermind was a Jewish attorney named Jack Greenberg.”

The “Civil Rights” movement is the never-ending go-to cause in Jewish media because it is the best Jewish trick for Jewish media to harp-on (as if “civil rights” is fresh news!) to Americans as it is affixed to the vulnerability of The US Constitution’s most fundamental terms of “civil individual rights.”

Thus, it is near impossible for “good Americans”, whether they are “conservative” or “liberal” to criticize “civil rights” as it is deeply enmeshed in America’s most hallowed terms, something “all Americans have common interest in”, even though, as these terms have been construed by Jewish interests, they are actually not about civil individual rights, but the advancement of theirs and black group rights over European peoples.

Jewish intelligence, organizational skills, money, influence in law, courts and media, made this (the civil rights movement), among many language games, overwhelming and impossible for White sovereignty to exist.

Their control points:

Media, Academia, Money, Business, Religion, Law&Courts, Politics.

This comment appeared in entry 'Profiles - First up, Earl Warren: “Activism” Over “Restraint”' on 03/29/15, 02:07 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Elaine jones wrote:

I live at 2934 Mercier in Kansas City Missouri.  I went to Douglass Elementary School in the 4th 5th, and 6th grade.  I along with other Black students first attended West Junior School in Kansas City Missouri school District in 1957.  West Junior later became West High School.  It is located on about 17th and Summit, Kansas City, Missouri 64108. 

Mexican, and White students were allowed to attend West Junior before Black students were allowed to attend in1955 I transferred to Manual high and Vocational School.  I graduated in 1963.  Later I Graduated at Lincoln University in 1969

and after five years of teaching at another school in Kansas City School District,  I taught 7th grade at Switzer which is behind West High School.  The three races Blacks, Whites, and Mexicans lived nicely together because our mothers were house wives and our father worked on the railroads down across from Southwest Boulevard.  There is so much more to tell.

This comment appeared in entry 'Mexicans versus Blacks.' on 03/28/15, 06:41 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Dear Daniel,

How sad - here is yet another naive and ignorant victim of the lies of Faurisson and Germar:

All the best, Christian

BTW: In his Posen speech, Himmler explains that “ausrotten” means “umbringen” or “umbringen lassen” - Faurisson forgot to tell, as usual. 

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015, Subject: Fw: 5083 Un bouddhiste américain se lance dans le révisionnisme

Subject : An American Buddhist launches into revisionism. Brian Ruhe is a Buddhist American, very influential, it seems, in Vancouver, who has taught Buddhism for 23 years, organizing retreats on philosophy and meditation, a Buddhist author of several books, also broadcasts many videos.

But here at the end of last year he discovered revisionism. On 31 December he was broadcasting the following video, in English only:

The video is entitled “It is illegal to discuss the Holocaust.” Here you go, basically, what he says:

“I am here on the Canadian side of the border with America in Point Roberts, Canada; where it is forbidden to discuss the Holocaust; prohibited to revisit this issue of the history of the Holocaust in any part. Then I’ll cross the border ...

So here I am: I just cross the border and I am now the United States, a country where we can discuss the Holocaust because we have freedom of expression through the First Amendment. And here are some reasons not to believe in the Holocaust as it has been told to us:

First two technical explanations

- When people are exposed to hydrogen cyanide their bodies necessarily turn pink, never gold; and no witnesses ever spoke of these pink colors and no picture ever showed a pink body

- Germar Rudolf has shown in his “Rudolf Report” that the walls of the alleged gas chambers should, like those of the disinfecting gas chambers, be impregnated with the color blue (Prussian blue), or it is not the case that gas was used.

Other reasons:

- We never found any order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews;

- As for a plan or budget for extermination, we never did find anything; and the Allies, who had deciphered the German codes, were aware of absolutely everything that was happening in the camps and elsewhere ...

And Brian Ruhe finished with these words (approximate since we don’t have all)

Adolf Hitler almost smashed the New World Order and for what will be until the end of time, viewed in people’s minds as the worst monster that ever lived.

They need the Holocaust as a cover to prevent people from going too near the truth about Nazi Germany; and awareness that Nazi Germany was a huge economic success, which brought happiness to people; it was a great system of government, the most successful system of government of all the history of humanity; and they do not want us to know the right side of Nazi Germany; rather, they equate the words “Nazi” and of “Adolf Hitler” to that of “the Holocaust” as one might combine the words “bacon” and “eggs.”

... Therefore I hereby proclaim in the United States, a country with The First Amendment, that the Holocaust is a deception.”

....yet another naive and ignorant victim of the lies of Faurisson and Germar.

This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/28/15, 11:02 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

“Let us remind ourselves of the nature of the Rotherham Syndrome.  Wherever possible, over a period of two or more decades, every police officer, social worker, doctor, local and national politician (save Ann Cryer), local and national journalist (save, eventually, Andrew Norfolk) … everybody in any position of responsibility whatsoever who had to deal with the victims, or came into possession of any knowledge of the crime, promptly and unequivocally betrayed them and allowed their abuse to continue.”

A bit like Kitty Genovese syndromes - bystander effect, diffused responsibility

Catherine Susan “Kitty” Genovese (July 7, 1935 – March 13, 1964) was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death by Winston Moseley near her home in Kew Gardens, a neighborhood in the borough of Queens in New York City, on March 13, 1964.
Two weeks later, a newspaper article reported the circumstances of Genovese’s murder and the lack of reaction from numerous neighbors. That… prompted investigation into the social psychological phenomenon that has become known as the “bystander effect” or “Genovese syndrome”, especially “diffusion of responsibility.”

What’s harder to explain is why the dispute over numbers matters. Were there more than 38 people within earshot of the first attack? Yes. Did 38 of them know what they were witnessing? Almost certainly not. Was the New York Times story geared toward sensationalism? Absolutely. But even in Cook’s conservative assessment, there were two men who were watching and chose not to intervene, and at least four or five other neighbors who were awake and had a pretty good idea. If the story of Kitty Genovese is that her neighbors did nothing while she was murdered, it is not an “intractable urban myth,” as a paper in American Psychologist described it in 2007. There were witnesses, and no one helped her. That’s no urban legend.

This comment appeared in entry 'The problem of the Establishment mentality – Part 2' on 03/28/15, 10:15 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Well that was a very quickly typed comment that’s now somehow on the front page! Could someone tidy up the typos (game theory not gane theory - the autocorrect on my tablet is taking a bit of getting to grips with - type too quickly and little autocorrects pop up all over the place)?

Anyway the general point I was trying to make is I hope obvious. It’s hard to take evolutionary biology seriously and be a liberal of any type (Hayekian or Rawlesian) but for more complex and subtle reasons than the average American WN type apparently appreciates.

This comment appeared in entry 'Individual and group relation on proper ontological grounds' on 03/28/15, 08:41 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Graham_Lister wrote:

Look I don’t have the time nor inclinations to point out the half-baked thinking of MRs commentators or interviewed guests (if I think them to be in error). Kevin McDonald can defend himself can he not? After all if his ideas are completely robust how can he be subject to a ‘humiliation’? All ideas, political, philosophical and scientific, have to be stress tested in order to investigate their validity. Why anyone is so much of a ‘special snowflake’ that they get a priori an exemption from this process is beyond me.

Now no-one that’s sane thinks the individual per se can or should be ‘abolished’ but people have very odd and damaging ideas about what ‘the individual’ is and what it represents - such that over the longer term the ideology of ‘individualism’ has extremely deleterious effects as its model of reality is not in alignment with the true social ontology. Human beings, including Europeans evolved in small, highly social/group orientated bands. It’s really not rocket science to understand that variation in fitness is partitioned into a group element and an individual element (whilst obviously selecting for or against specific alleles and associated phenotypic traits). In fact such an observation mathematically and logically flows from basic population genetics, which Hamilton when on to describe as ‘inclusive fitness’ and the importance of relatedness to the evolution of behaviour and life history traits (like female biased sex-ratios in the Hymenoptera etc). Price simplified inclusive fitness theory with his work. And it’s developed since. Steven Frank’s book on social evolution is still the best starting point for anyone seriously interested in the topic.

Returning to the politics and philosophy parts of the discussion Aristotle is my favourite thinker in these areas. First of all he would suggest that a proper balance between the ‘parts’ and the ‘whole’ (individuals and the group) is necessary for both to fully flourish. There is a mutual interdependence and reciprocity between the two levels of social reality. Secondly Aristotle would suggest that their may be many ways to live (like being a Lockean liberal perhaps) but many ways to live are ultimately suboptimal with the goal of full and genuine human flourishing. And this true at both the individual level and the group level. And yes the interests of a given individual and a given group can be conflict (again this flows from very basic evolutionary biology and the gane-theoretic issue of ‘free-riders’). Thus there must be mechanisms for maintaining the health of both individuals and the collective. It starts by the recognition of the fact that the individual is social and utterly dependent upon the collective in numerous ways that liberal ‘individualistic’ ideology willfully ignores.

Ultimately I reject liberalism as a set of false ideas about the human world - it has the ontology of humans both as individuals and as communities wrong. Bad ideas eventually result in bad consequences and one hopes vice versa. Thus I am broadly an Aristotelian communitarian. And I think that must incorporate the realities of human nature (groupishness) and our bio-cultural differential status regarding different groups of human beings. Note it’s a political axis of differences (bio-cultural) that ultimately ends up in the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, not some bullshit about equality vs inequalities except that I very naturally value my own well being and life more highly than a random stranger’s and I also value the life of my extended community both today and tommorow (the idea of an intergenerational ‘moral economy’).

Being a non-liberal I am against cheap all-encompassing forms of universalism or the moral plateau as philosophers call it. Rather I believe in a nested hierarchy of moral responsibility. I have much more moral duties to my own children than my next door neighbour’s kids, let alone some family in China (that of course does not imply I, by default, hate people in China or wish them harm just that I feel I have minimal moral responsibilities towards them). But I do have some properly warranted moral responsibilities to my neighbourhood and my community. Moral responsibility varies with proximity (properly understood).

Roger Scruton writes about a hierarchy of moral responsibility often. Here he speaks about in the context of the absurd (and liberal) idea of ‘animal rights’ -

OK I have previously attempted on many occasions to write abour and explain my thoughts on topics such as societal homogeneity and social capital etc. I will not endlessly repeat myself.

As for the idiotic paranoid reaction by some to my reappearance it was simply a function of me taking a quick look at MR in a quite moment and seeing folks speculation about my death! And I posted some chucks from an essay I had been reading. I am starting to get to grips with using a tablet and MR as a site isn’t the easiest to use and so out of laziness I didn’t put the comments in quotation marks. Only when someone posted them to the front page as my own did I feel duty bound to privately point out that fact. But they are still good points about 90% of I agree with.

No coordination with Danny or GW etc. Seeing a conspiracy at every turn is how Jews think - they project onto others their own deeply ingrained mindset. It’s both pathetic and undignified to follow that way of thinking quite so slavishly.

Speaking of slaves can anyone seriously doubt the USA is a vassal state of Israel? The best superpower money can buy? And yet Americans still persist in their hurbris they are the model Europeans ‘must’ follow? Look if KM or indeed anyone else is pushing that as some sort of ‘idea’ they can go fuck themselves. Savvy?

If Mr Bowery wishes to contribute to MR go for it. Really who the fucks cares either way?

This comment appeared in entry 'Individualism's Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister' on 03/28/15, 06:55 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

stance that “individualism” is best thought of as a pathology

I have never said anything like individualism is a pathology.

I have argued that we have susceptibilities. And rule structures which exaggerate the importance or the truth of individualism (which take no account of evolutionary and developmental positions in protracted systems, for example), can leave our systemic homeostasis susceptible.

I then invariably argue that Jews, in particular, and especially, have ways to take advantage of this, but so do other races and quite importantly, our own disingenuous traitors.

As I said scores of times, I believe in paradigmatic conservatism - conservative borders and relatively free individualism within.

Have your state and all the individualism that you want. You are free to your experiment - see? show us how well that works.

It would be too simple and too blunt an investigative instrument to say…

caused by “modernity” or “liberalism” is a very blunt instrument

IF that was all and characteristic of what I am saying.

But it wasn’t and isn’t

Did I ever say Jews had nothing to do with it?

You are the one being blunt, Jim.

“with which to attack the problem and indeed is anti-intellectual.”

Nonsense. I proposed nothing so simple. In “Leftism as a Code Word”, for example, I argue that Jewish antagonism is a key pole of consideration; along with our susceptibilities. I did not discuss positive attributes of individualism there because it was not a part of that discussion. Although I have, and will again (taking Harre’s position that there is both a corporeal and a narrative self).

I will discuss positive aspects of individualism along with anti-social and systemic disintegration, when I pick up the issue of the dark side (and the positive side) of self actualization again, refining it through what I have learned since initial permutations of those essays.

And again, that corresponds with a way to frame and negotiate gender relations in a good way all around.

This comment appeared in entry 'Individualism's Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister' on 03/28/15, 05:16 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

Taking private communications public in the way you have is going to do little to earn you the trust of people you might want to invite to interviews at MR.

Why are you behaving so self-destructively?

How am I going to “earn the trust of people” if you go around telling people not to trust us?

I have made no such promise nor had I intended to do any such thing.

Forgive me then for perceiving you as being a little over-protective of MacDonald.  Which you are, in fact. It is not as if there is no evidence that some people are actively trying to minimize our reach. Ted Sallis explicitly (and wrongly) stated that he would discourage Salter from talking with us.

But do you really think that Graham was going to talk to KM in the irreverent way that he spoke with you? I don’t.

I thought an interview between you and KM would be good, appropriate, and of interest to many (myself included). And if you think the struggle can use a little tweaking, perhaps your talk would help.

You have as much as said that you would actively discourage MacDonald from talking to us.

No I have said that I would not want to be a party to subjecting him to abuse.

You are wrongly assuming that he would be subject to abuse.

First of all, I wouldn’t allow for it, but secondly, I don’t believe Graham would talk to him the way that he did with you.

  I found that enormously unfair, especially when I proposed YOU to be the interviewer.

  Just WHO, then, was supposed to conduct the interview in an untrustworthy way?

Like I said, the prominent place you gave Lister’s anti-individual polemics—combined with Lister’s reappearance recently—leads me to believe that KMac would risk public humiliation at the hands of Lister, with your and GW’s tacit approval, of the kind that drove me away from MR.

Absolutely not true.

I will repeat:

You are wrongly assuming that he would be subject to abuse.

First of all, I wouldn’t allow for it, but secondly, I don’t believe Graham would talk to him the way that he did with you.

If you get KMac to do an interivew, far be it from me to go behind your back and warn him of the danger.

However, your public posting of my thoughts on the matter has made that a moot point, hasn’t it?

Jim, while previously misrepresenting what I have been saying as against empiricism, you said that the idea of participating here caused you “revulsion”. I thought that I disabused you of your misunderstanding.

Another time you went on to say that GW and I were “egregious” for treating you as if you were antagonistic. The reverse, treating us as if we are against European interests and gratuitously antagonistic to you is what is egregious - some sort of errant projection.

Let me come back to what you said here, because you left off the response that I’d given to it:

Like I said, the prominent place you gave Lister’s anti-individual polemics—combined with Lister’s reappearance recently—leads me to believe that KMac would risk public humiliation at the hands of Lister, with your and GW’s tacit approval, of the kind that drove me away from MR.

You, yourself have said that I should encourage Graham to come back to MR because you have gigs elsewhere.

That was part of the reason for my entering his comments as a post.

Not that I minded..Bye the way, Morgoth liked it, re-posted it, and got over 400 comments along with it.

You said its Lister or Bowery at MR

He came back and then so did you..

What gives? I should encourage him to be here and then here you are as well.

At any rate, I was/am happy to see him back.

I was happy to see you back. It seemed like an interview with KM was in the air. Still could be as far as my wishes go..

I honestly thought/think you’d be an excellent interviewer for MacDonald.

It is absurd to assume that GW and I would approve of a public flogging of MacDonald. A lot of good that would do us, or anybody.

It is mistaken to believe that Graham would flog him as he did to you and that we would just allow him to do that to MacDonald.

And especially with you there as added, but really unnecessary, insurance of that.

However, your public posting of my thoughts on the matter has made that a moot point, hasn’t it?

And, as I have said, if you are putting across the idea that I am a liability to trust - it really has to do with my stance against Hitler people who also like KM (to them, I am unreliable, but it is they who are the traitors); and for not necessarily having made my case that I was not antagonistic to KM where I attempted to show how Jews had distorted certain otherwise proper language games - I needed to bring my position into the open so that my position toward him can be defended. You are saying that I want to tacitly approve flogging him and that is absolutely untrue to what I intend and what I would have happen. I know that my position toward him is ethical and I value his work very much.

At one time, he may have mis-perceived certain of my critiques as attacks on him and his work, but if he hasn’t come to see that is not true yet (he may have) that could be clarified pretty easily.

It was also a good occasion for you to be the one to talk to him because I have, of necessity (from my point of view) been hard on Duke and others that circulate with MacDonald while you and GW don’t carry that weight. You also share KM’s scientific predilections and his American perspective. Thus, I thought it was appropriate that you interview him, that it would be fascinating and important.

The idea that the purpose was to subject him to flogging and humiliation is totally wrong.

I was looking forward to it as a teen fan might look forward to a great group in concert.

This comment appeared in entry 'Individualism's Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister' on 03/28/15, 02:39 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Duane on slide wrote:

This comment appeared in entry 'Ancient and modern – Part 2' on 03/28/15, 02:08 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

It is entirely accurate to state that you and Lister see “individualism” as a pathology caused by “modernity” and “liberalism”.

No it isn’t (for me) because I believe we have more possibilities than to be caused.

The fact that you understand the Jewish contribution to this pathological “individualism” via “modernity” and “liberalism” is a given, is accurate and I never meant to imply that you ignored that contribution.

A close reading of your recent post of Lister’s “critique” of individualism shows it to be utterly without evolutionary referent.

Well, I posted it with the comment section there, in ready acknowledgement that it may not be a perfect statement.

There is absolutely no recognition that a predisposition toward individualism may be part of the biological inheritance—the DNA of Euroman—let alone that it may be a valuable part of that inheritance, however subjected to abuse and distortion by inimical forces.

Per has been emphasizing that, and I have not only congratulated him for that emphasis on northern evolution, but have encouraged him to make more contributions discussing this emphasis.

Which totally belies this:

This refusal to address scholarship in the area of individualism—scholarship that is now decades old—sets back the intellectual discourse by decades.  That is what makes it anti-intellectual.

As I said in my last sentence. But maybe you just see what you want to see.

It is a big problem with the habit of computer people. I have been through this. If you set something down, even as a sketch to think about, it becomes a permanent vacuum packed record of your thought to be condemned and pummeled in a test of its errant pathway, a fixed pathway, as opposed to something human and subject to joint correction.

That is thuggery and that is a projection.

Worse, I have already paid too high a price giving computer people the benefit of the doubt only to have them imperviously apply theoria to praxis.

Please point to a passage—even one passage—in the Lister critique that shows my close reading to be in error.

I put it up for consideration, not having scoured the corollary of its every word.

As I said, there was the comment section, there for critique. In my opinion, it is a good corrective opinion of America’s over emphasis on abstract individualism.

Eusociality and loss of individualism is a valid concern but not in the near term and especially not with our being as conscious as we are of the value of individualism - even if only recognized as an emphasis of some nations as an option against nations which would prefer to treat people as humans and honestly in relation to one another, instead of shield maidens beckoning to some 88 red ice god in the sky..

This comment appeared in entry 'Individualism's Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister' on 03/27/15, 06:03 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

DanielS wrote:

I thought I was being kind in inviting James to a proposed interview with Kevin MacDonald.

James said:

Lister’s (and your)

Stop there.

Jim, I hate to say this, but this is not the first time that you have been dishonest in representing where I am coming from.

You say, “And your” as if I have a firm commitment to fixed algorithms of non-individualism, like some mis-entered computer program which might go on imperviously.

In fact, Jim, you have done it a few times.

stance that “individualism” is best thought of as a pathology

As I said, what, a million times? I believe in paradigmatic conservatism - conservative borders and relatively free individualism within.

Have your state and all the individualism that you want. You are free to your experiment - see? show us how well that works.

It is too simple and too self serving of you to say….

caused by “modernity” or “liberalism” is a very blunt instrument

Did I ever say Jews had nothing to do with it?

You are the one being blunt, Jim.

“with which to attack the problem and indeed is anti-intellectual.”

Nonsense. I proposed nothing so simple. In Leftism as a Code Word, for example, I argue that Jewish antagonism is a key pole of consideration; along with our susceptibilities. I did not discuss positive attributes of individualism there because it was not a part of that discussion. Although I have, and will again (taking Harre’s position that there is both a corporeal and a narrative self).

“Lister is an intellectual thug and I don’t think it advisable to expose KMac to his thuggery.”

So you will protect him against GW, me and in fact, you (as the proposed lead interlocutor), because we were going to do something that he could not handle?

Nor do I think that Lister would be a thug to KM, but you know, Jim, the main idea of inviting you was to ensure KM the feeling of protection against any “thuggery” (and feeling would have been all it was, because no thuggery was forthcoming; of course, no protection was necessary except in your egotistical imagination).

Not only do I like him and his scholarship; he and his work were the reason that I came into the open in the struggle.

I am not obligated and would not be correct to adhere to the falsity of the Nazi beliefs of some people who tarry with him.

Hadding accused my mother of indoctrinating me against Germans.

Who is the thug?

Still, not an issue that I wished to broach.


Sorry that I asked you.

Jim, sorry to say, but this is a dishonest assessment - at least of my position. You have done that too much. It stinks.

This comment appeared in entry 'Individualism's Wake: The Abyss - some favorites of Dr. Lister' on 03/27/15, 04:51 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

overconfident females wrote:

Good link passed on by GL which talks in similar terms as I have for the past several years on the issue of gender relations and monogamy:

This remark in particular echoes experiences and observations that I’ve written about in several places:

It has created a “Candy Store Effect” for women, whereas basically tons of males are available within a tip of a fingers reach. This results in overconfident, deluded women (in regard to their true Sexual Market Value) who are invited to ride the carousel in their prime years, prejudice and guilt free.

This comment appeared in entry 'Miscegenation As Equivalent to Rape and Pedophila - Part 3' on 03/27/15, 12:47 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Vlad Impaler vs. homogEU wrote:

Vasile Lupasc discusses his Romanian historical perspective, from Dracula’s brilliant military tactics to the commercial homogenization of Europe’s once fascinating variety of national/cultural differences.

This comment appeared in entry 'NATIONALIST RENAISSANCE' on 03/27/15, 05:37 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

James Bowery wrote:

Google is pursuing a massive, world-girdling, balloon-based mesh network infrastructure with many of the characteristics I described in the above post here at MR in early 2007.

This comment appeared in entry 'Postcivil Society: Empty the Cities' on 03/26/15, 05:21 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

James Bowery wrote:

My 1978 gray-code solution to the Tower of Hanoi problem was actually deemed worthy of publication by an academic journal (Information Processing Letters):

Buneman, Peter, and Leon Levy. “The towers of Hanoi problem.” Information Processing Letters 10.4 (1980): 243-244.

This problem may have been worthy of no more than a high school computer programming assignment but if so it is interesting that it got Buneman and Levy even a minor place in computer science history.

This comment appeared in entry 'Displaced Programmer Support for Ron Paul' on 03/26/15, 04:58 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Open letter to Max Hastings wrote:

Open letter to Sir Max Hastings:

Dear Max Hastings,

I am writing you from the nationalist site, “Majority Rights.”

It started out as a free discussion site and thus entertained a variety of arguments, some highly stigmatic.

Over the past few years I have taken its general direction from free discussion to a platform which essentially represents the interests of native Europeans and Native European nationalists.

With that, our platform rejects Hitler and Nazism of necessity and by definition.

Nor will it be beholden to religion.

Further, it treats Jewish people as non-European, thus not in our interest group. Perhaps controversially, we are critical of them, seeing them as over represented in 7 societal power points; and will speak irreverently of them in order to make it clear to Nazi types, that they do not have a corner on not wanting to be beholden to Jewish influence.

Nevertheless, though we do look upon Jews as a largely hostile influence to European interests, we are not a single cause site. Nor are we supremacists. Rather, we take a separatist and universal nationalist position.

We seek sovereignty, not killing.

Majority Rights is carving out a niche, one might say, for sane nationalists.

On the other hand, Hitler idolatry has become a kind of strange politically correct litmus test among popular “White Nationalist” web sites.

Needless to say (to you) I believe this is a catastrophic association for a movement - for White = European people and their National boundaries - which does not, or should not, be represented by what is in fact the imperialism and supremacism of the kind Hitler had in mind.

Our site has even become less popular for this editorial stance against Hitler.

The same litmus test among WN which maintains Hitler idolatry comes with an outright vilification of Churchill.

Part of why this has happened, I surmise, is because “White” Americans are far and away German(ic) and secondly Irish. Thus, with America in decline and plausible arguments that Jews are a prime cause (e.g.,, Hitler gains more currency as his views circulate untroubled by those Americans of European descent demographics not highly represented in America, whose interests were in conflict with Hitler’s aspirations.

With that, it has become the agenda of many WN to vindicate Hitler as “the good guy” even, to argue that The US was on “the wrong side of the war.”

Some hope to “disprove” the holocaust.

(we recently spoke with Dr. Christian Lindtner for his expertise in debunking holocaust deniers).

The same White Nationalist culture has taken to vilifying Churchill for his Jewish ties and for opposing Hitler.

Thus, we come to my reasons for seeking an interview with you.

Between your film, “The Necessary War” and your latest book on Churchill, you have purveyed crucial information to balance this distorted perspective of White Nationalism.

Particularly helpful to argument is your discussion of “Operation Unthinkable” - especially because you are critical of it as highly impractical, it seems to show that Churchill was not a mere cynical pragmatist who merely sold-out Poland to the Soviets.

By contrast, it is a frequent contention of WN that Churchill’s whole “ostensible” reason for declaring war in defense of Poland was belied by his sheer willingness to let them fall under Soviet control.

Next, WN typically argue that Churchill was put up to war solely by his Jewish ties and sponsors.

I consider that perhaps Churchill thought he was availing himself of Jewish help in taking on a rogue Nazi regime - that the Nazis actually were a bad regime (believe it or not, that is unthinkable in popular WN) and wanting to reign supreme over hitherto free nations.

There was a discussion just the other day between two well known “White” activists, both PhD certified, in which they acknowledged that Churchill cited the Jewish role behind communism (and that goes against the claim that Churchill was a thorough philoSemite), but that he saw Zionism as an option for decent Jews.

It is apparent that something like Israel, if not Israel, then some place for a Jewish nation, would be the ethical nationalist position - and a position that Churchill may have been assimilating. There may have been Judeo-Christian reasoning to this as well, seeing Israel as the Jews’ destiny and so on.

In fact, the Balfour Declaration for British help in reclaiming Israel in exchange for Jewish help in getting The US into World War I is cited by WN as Jewish control instead of perhaps what was perceived (perhaps mis-perceived) an equitable nationalist deal for “Jewish help.”

To prominent WN, the Balfour Declaration is “proof” that the only motivation to go against Germany in World War One was in Jewish interests.

That argument is rebutted, among other examples, by yours and Sir Hugh Strachan’s discussion of the atrocities committed by the Kaiser’s army in Belgium.

If we could discuss these matters with you it could bring crucial balance on these issues and put a desperate lot on a better course.

There is another article of faith in WN that your film brought into focus as being off-the-mark.

Versailles is invariably taken as having been entirely unfair to The Germans and Hitler perfectly within reason to overcompensate in response.

I observe only four cities on the Polish border that Germany might have found hard to relinquish, but did not merit a renewed world war: Poznan was justifiably returned to Poland. The Versailles committee making Danzig neutral again seems fairly reasonable given the context and history. Bromberg and Thorn made logistical sense to give to Poland so as not to extrude so far into Poland and its sea access.

Not entirely unreasonable.

Moreover, Poland had already demonstrated staunch resolve to resist Soviet invasion, thus rebutting another Nazi argument, that they needed to invade Eastward in order to pre-empt a Soviet advance.

The Sudetenland is more difficult to argue and that is where I need even more help from you.

Again, of course, it is assumed that Hitler was entirely within reason to demand it as part of Germany.

So, I ask, why did Versailles give The Sudetenland to Czech?

Was it a territorial buffering and penalty for a war seen as having been caused by Germany?

Was it compensation for The 30 Years War’s devastation of the Czech population?

A few other questions emerge as result of your discussions with Margaret MacMillan -

More controversial still, but raising what seem to be legitimate red flags from a “WN” perspective… evidence that a German victory would have been generally negative for Europe, she provides an example of Kaiser Germany having been very “hard on the Bolsheviks.”

Was that bad? Wasn’t it maybe they who needed still harder treatment?

She provides another scenario in which Versailles might have done better to be even harder on Germany by breaking it up, perhaps even into regional fiefdoms. Indeed, that may have prevented a World War (no small matter) but what would prevent these small and relatively powerless fiefdoms from being taken advantage of by Jewish interests and Neo Liberal internationalism to the detriment of Europe as we are now experiencing? - such as with Sweden being on the brink -

There probably is some overcompensation on the part of Jewish interests and Neo Liberals in response to the war, but evidence points to a longer evolutionary pattern of antagonism to native European interests -


- moving through stages of naivete, to disingenuousness, to overcompensating, inaccurate, counter-productive response.

Do you see the possibility that this pattern is not an illusion and if it is real, as it seems to be, the possibility to discuss what we might do about it with the help of an accurate and sane reading of European history?


This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/26/15, 11:38 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Faurison's "method for clarity" wrote:

On today’s (March 26th, second hour) Stormfront Radio show, Don Advo said that he was deeply moved by an Institute of Historical Review* conference where he met Robert Faurison.

Faurison spoke of his “method for getting clarity”, which was to first translate something from German to French then to Latin, then to English, then back to French.

Don Advo thinks this is great.

“A statue should be erected for Faurison for his concern for truth.”

As for this “method” of gaining clarity, it seems reminiscent of the old “telephone” game, wherein information gets lost with each transmission until the original message is completely altered by time of the last transmission.

Or, in the case of Faurison, perhaps it is more like a card trick, distracting people with focus on his language and other academic skills.

* Metzger calls it “The Institute of Hysterical Review”

This comment appeared in entry 'Majority Radio: Dr Christian Lindtner speaks to DanielS and GW' on 03/26/15, 10:18 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)

Page 1 of 3500 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›