|
|
|
EU Inventing New Crime Category: Holocaust “Trivializing” Here is one of those cases where reality appears to be satire:
I think its time to have a contest to identify the most offensive mockery of the crucifixion of Christ ever put on public display in Europe. This is only appropriate as a demonstration of the fact that the theocracy of Christianity has been replaced by the theocracy of Holocaustianity. The days of incarceration for heresies and blasphemies questioning Christian canons or mocking Christian deities/saints are long gone now replaced by incarceration for questioning Holocaustian canons or mocking Holocaustian symbols. In the US, we have a history of many Jewish art critics praising works like Piss Christ if not producing mockeries of Christianity for major motion picture release. I’m sure there must be many counterparts in the EU. Comments:2
Posted by john rackell on Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:46 | # Damn, now I’ll never be able to find out how many Jews can fit in a Volkswagen Beetle. But Jews always told the best Holocaust jokes - darn near the only ones who told them. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:40 | # Steven, I have been attempting, without success, to contact you by e-mail for some time now. I would be grateful if you would make contact with me, please. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:01 | # I heartily second Svy: yet another great post by Steven Palese! 5
Posted by MrSmith on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:02 | # Speaking of ‘piss Christ’ etc, we’re trying to keep tabs on current actions against Christianity at a blog we’ve mockingly named ‘Christianophobia Watch’. If anyone comes across a story they think we should carry, please do drop us a line in the comments box. We’re just a little blog at the moment, but we’re aiming high. And Steve, you do realise that only the first two in your list of the ‘5 abrahamic religions’ are actually religions, right? 6
Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03 | # Guessedworker, Got your email this morning thanks. I’ve already replied and hope you like what you see The reason you couldn’t contact me earlier is because .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) has been nuked by spammers and I no longer use it. Our little semitic friend at “inverted world” saw to it after I posted a few comments he didn’t like. 7
Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:13 | # MrSmith, “And Steve, you do realise that only the first two in your list of the ‘5 abrahamic religions’ are actually religions, right?” A religion is merely a structured belief system based on faith The belief that placing a cmmunist tyranny in power leads to heaven on earth is an irrational belief, i.e. a faith. The belief that failure to suppress white ethnocentrism leads to hell on earth is an irrational belief, i.e. a faith. 8
Posted by second class citizen on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:29 | # It’s been a long time since I’ve posted here, but I lurk a lot. The writing is better than I’ve ever seen it. First the essay on the “moneygetters” by wintermute, and now this piece by Steven Palese, both in the comments! I’m very impressed. Svyatoslav is dead on as always. Fred Scooby is now one of my favorites. Did something happen to JJR? 9
Posted by Andy Wooster on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:12 | # The Realist clearly wants Jared Taylor prosecuted for Holocaust trivializing: Notice, by the way, how long it took him to state that any Jews at all had died under the Nazi regime. He didn’t say that the first time, when Wayne Harris asked him; nor the second time, when JM asked him. It was only after an outcry risked seriously damaging his reputation that he was willing to make even this patronizing little concession. http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/ 10
Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:26 | # Well thanks everyone. I’d just like to point out that the original PC is a religion and hitler is its god insight was Bob Whitaker’s, I just synthesized it and tacked my three racial theories line to it. Then I threw in some humor and let it simmer for 20 minutes under a slow fire to add a twist of burnt dogma to the crispy flavor of heresy. Second class citizen, I agree that Fred’s posts are great and in fact have been spamming them around without his permission. So I’ll take this opportunity to ask for it Hey Fred, can I do this: 11
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:36 | # Nice post Steven Palese. You haven’t said anything that wasn’t already known by all racially aware Whites who are fascinated by Jewish behaviour in host societies, but not all of us have your eloquence and ability to put what we feel and know into words. 12
Posted by second class citizen on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:49 | # Søren, Thanks for the confirmation. This buzzing cosmos of ours is certainly interesting. I get the feeling that things might be swinging the way of the European once again. The internet has had the promise of being a tool to track and round up, but it has also been a great boon for our cause in that now the information is out there. It takes relatively little effort for a person to research the stories that the media and schools present and to find that there are in fact two sides. And that the other side is usually better at presenting evidence and argument. The truly intelligent White man who can use a search engine and is young enough to form views has a choice. That choice is between truth or denial. Things never look so bad as at the nadir, nor as rosy at the zenith. Jewish domination has lasted at least a hundred years. It seems endless, but we must remember that even the Roman empire eventually crumbled. 13
Posted by NEC watch on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:53 | # http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_eu/eu_racism Serious questions: when these “laws” are passed by the national parliments - which they assuredly will be - will Majority Rights then be illegal in Europe? Will “On Genetic Interests” be illegal? Will Lowell’s platform be illegal? For a number of years, some of us in America attempted to warn/explain to European nationalists that they needed to make the free speech issue the number one priority - even above immigration, for without free speech how can you deal effectively with the immigration issue? If your entire platform is effectively “illegal”, how can you perform in the system? And have no doubts: the vague wordings and meanings of these “laws” make it certain that any politically motivated court can “determine” that _any_ speech that defends the ethnic interests of native Europeans is “incitement to hate.” Indeed, the fact that one could never be certain in advance whether statements of objective fact could be construed as “illegal hate” will have a chilling effect in Europe. But, of course, the European nationalists “knew better.” Who are these ignorant Yanks - who don’t even have any nationalist parties of their own - to tell us what to do? Yes, indeed. Good luck now fighting for race and civilization in Europe, when these issues are, de facto, criminalized. What good is having “organized nationalist parties” when they are incapable of mounting an effective defense against having their entire worldview criminalized by an opposition that then crows that it is a “democracy” defending “freedom” and that these viciously repressive laws were “diluted” to preserve “free speech.” Note as well that the Baltic states’ wish to have Stalinism included in the “forbidden” thought crimes was rejected. After all, we know what the real purpose of these “laws” are: to criminalize the defense of European ethnic interests. It would be useful to hear from Lowell, Arlette, Murros, DS, Sunic and even Hoffmeister with respect to this issue. Has anyone over there waken up yet? Imagine trying to campaign on tax reform if criticism of taxation was illegal. The same principle holds here. 14
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:47 | # Svyatoslav, they try to defuse your position by saying:
The reality is that the time to beat the plow into a sword is not when they criminalize speech, but when they criminalize secession. Freedom of speech is a red herring. I’ve never run across anyone who genuinely believed in freedom of speech. Everyone has some class of “speech acts” they consider unacceptable. The only freedom worthy of the name is arrived at from construction of the very word “freedom”: Territory over which you have free reign, including the freedom to agree to certain behavioral standards joining your territory to a domain—and the freedom to leave such agreements taking your territory with you from that domain to another domain with different agreements. In other words, the freedom to form proposition nations even if it is proposed that genetic heritage is the best basis for nationhood. 15
Posted by JB on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:13 | # The so-called Realist:
16
Posted by NEC watch on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:19 | # Mr. Bowery: the problem here is they’ll use their speech laws to determine that “freedom of association” based on “genetic heritage” is “hate” and thus illegal. Freedom of association may be more fundamental than freedom of speech. The problem, however, is that you need relatively free speech in order to discuss and promote freedom of association. And this is not an exercise in abstract theorizing. Practically speaking: under these new “laws” what would happen, for example, to an ethnic German proposing that German citizenship and residence have a genetic basis in German ethnicity? Doesn’t this imply that non-Germans are present in Germany illegitimately, thus “inciting hatred” toward these ethnic non-Germans. As far as practical politics goes, free speech is the gold standard. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:11 | # The EU-wide crime has been agreed. But it is on the basis, according to the spin, of a “weak text”, leaving many countries existing legislation unchanged. Britain is said to be one of them. The fact remains that holocaust denial, albeit of a “gross” character, will now be illegal in Britain, when it was not illegal this morning. A wedge that is perfectly alien to our legal traditions has been driven in. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:14 | # Brussels Journal blogs on this today:
Vladimir Bukovsky warned about this a year ago, telling us exactly this was coming and specifically naming the same two “crimes” mentioned in the proposal above:
As can be seen and as “NEC Watch” alludes to, through this means the other side won’t have to police the internet specifically. It will silence all discussion it deems a threat, including that taking place over the internet, by means of society-wide anti-“hate” laws of this nature which will cover the internet as well as everything else. 19
Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:51 | # How do you profit from war in a world where large states have nuclear weapons? First you take control of the institutions of power - media, and then the government. Then you colonize the countries of large states with alien races, and with your power you give them a helping hand to achieve a foothold. After they are both of an equivalent size, you remove the gloves from the non-nuclear, ministates, and let them go at it. At that point, they make good customers for all manner of materiel. 20
Posted by Bo Sears on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 02:57 | # Svyatoslav Igorevich quotes someone above, “Freedom of speech is a red herring. I’ve never run across anyone who genuinely believed in freedom of speech. Everyone has some class of “speech acts” they consider unacceptable.” And then Igorevich goes on to say, “I suppose that’s true; I don’t support allowing folks to sit around and plan crimes with impunity, for example. Theoretically, it’s not a good idea, but practically you just can’t always expect to catch them with their hands in the cookie jar. Short of that I’m having a hard time finding exceptions.” The charge of conspiracy has a long and dangerous history. Fundamentally, it is just as Igorevich describes it, sitting around and planning crimes. This is the legal weapon favored by the totalitarian and authoritarian state structures beyond all others. Conspiracy without action should never be a crime, but it is a special crime in that conspiracy (two or more planning) can often be a felony under the law even if the planned crimes are mere misdemeanors or infractions, and never occurred. We see this in the trials directed by special prosecutors in Washington, DC, that signal the rise or fall of new interests when old policies are criminalized. But there are plenty of crimes in which speech alone may be a crime. For example, telephonic communications that are illegal in one jurisdiction but not in another; the classic scream of “fire” in a crowded theater; the clasic “fighting words” exception; oral fraud in business dealings; making a false statement to a federal law enforcement agent (remember Martha?); a phoned-in bomb threat even without a bomb; perjury; directions to a site or thing that put the recipient in grave bodily harm; oral extortion; oral blackmail; and threats that make the recipient fear an actual battery can all be viewed as criminalized speech. 21
Posted by JB on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:03 | # here’s one good hour of radio. Michael Piper interviews John Denugent[spelling ?] and Margaret Hofshtickler[spelling ?] and they discuss the persecution of holocaust revisionists in Europe (he says some are condemned to be examined by mental health experts) and the status of the white resistance in Germany, Finland and other countries. at about 38 minutes John talks about a hate filled anti-white media mogul in Finland that celebrates ethnomasochism. Can a finn reader tell us more about that guy Herko[spelling?] ?
WindowsMedia RealMedia QuickTime 22
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:55 | # NEC watch writes: As far as practical politics goes, free speech is the gold standard. I would tend to agree with that statement except that there have been uses of the word “politics” and related terms that render it questionable. For example:
—Mao Zedong or
—Ben Franklin or
—Carl von Clausewitz So I would ask, “If freedom of speech is the gold standard of practical politics, what then is the right to keep and bear arms?” 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:29 | #
The answer is in the quote above by Benjamin Franklin: the right to keep and bear arms is the gold standard of liberty. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:41 | # I suspect those who identify “liberty” with the French Revolution might have some difficulty with the right to keep and bear arms. The two most important facts to remember about the Founders and their relationship to the French Revolution are: 1) They owed much to the French for the American Revolution. 2) Many of the men attending the Constitutional Convention were intensive employers of slave labor from Africa who were attempting to shift repayment of war debts off of wealth and onto the subsistence labors of yeoman farmers who had fought the Revolutionary War. Tragically, they succeeded, but in the bargain they had to put into place things like the Bill of Rights—or they would have found their own heads rolling along with the French aristocracy. Post a comment:
Next entry: Behold the elitism of the eponymous liberal
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Steven Palese on Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:38 | #
I don’t think it’s necessary to make up a label for this fifth abramic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism and now Political Correctness) since everybody already calls these religious freakazoids the “Politically Correct”.
As I posted a minute ago in the Chinese nationalist thread, and as I’ll never tire of repeating, Political Correctness is a religion, i.e. a structured belief system based on faith. A religion need not have a god, although Political Correctness appears to have one. Its god is Hitler, an altogether evil god that is despised by its followers. In this respect Political Correctness is similar to the Aztec religions whose evil gods had to be appeased with constant human sacrifice. The evil god Hitler needs to be kept at bay with constant discrimination against whites.
The doctrine of Political Correctness measures everything against this god, the evil Adolf Hitler. In this religion, everything that Hitler believed in is evil, and everything that he opposed is good. This belief system condenses to two doctrines:
* Non-white minorities are to be worshipped in the morning
* The white majority is to be degraded in the evening
And is based on this one cardinal faith:
Whites are oppressors; therefore whites deserve discrimination and racism to redress the imbalance.
This faith is in turn sustained and legitimised by three anti-white racial theories:
1. The Unique History of White Evil theory
2. The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory
3. The White Majority Deference theory
The Unique History of White Evil Theory
This racial theory holds that “whites cannot evade history”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against a group based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual participation or consent (in slavery, holocaust, etc.) and therefore denies innocence as a defense.
The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory
This racial theory holds that “whites are privileged”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.
The White Majority Deference Theory
This racial theory holds that “majorities must serve minorities”. It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.
—-
And to keep their evil god Adolf Hitler at bay these religious freakazoids believe they have to keep calling for more and more sacrifice:
Sacrifice your borders! Sacrifice your free speech! Sacrifice your safe neighborhood! Sacrifice your children’s opportunities! Sacrifice your heritage! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!
Why? Because The Evil God Adolf Hitler must be kept at bay! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Lest he ARISE and BLOT OUT THE SUN!! and stomp cars with his feet! And gas Jews with his farts!! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice! Sacrifice!
And don’t you dare violate the Great Sacred Truth,
“If you go against your group interests while black you’re an uncle tom, if you do so while white you’re open-minded. Amen. If you express group interests while black you’re standing up for your people, if you do so while white you’re racist. Amen.”