Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:33 | #

Bishop Williamson’s blog:

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/

Posted by AccordingtothePhiladelphiaTrumpet on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:28 | #

I notice you guys write about Germany quite a bit.  Ever read the Philadelphia Trumpet (http://www.thetrumpet.com)?  They’re based in Oklahoma, have 10 million readers worldwide, and seem to think that Germany will create a Fourth Reich from within the EU and threaten America, Britain and Israel.  Anglo-Saxons, BTW, are actually descendants of ancient Israel, and Jesus is coming back to have sex with all of them.  Oh, and Germany also killed the dinosaurs.  Happy reading!

Posted by Englander on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:31 | #

I see in his blog that the bishop also has unorthodox views about 9/11. Make of that what you will.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:59 | #

The Spiegel interview:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,606323,00.html

Check out the title page graphic from Junge Freiheit this week:

As I remember, Pressac’s work has been thoroughly debunked.  I don’t see the good Bishop changing his mind.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:39 | #

Thanks Fred.  I rushed the link, but it’s fixed now.

Dasein,

From the CODOH forum:-

1) Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989) ou bricolage et “gazouillages” à Auschwitz et à Birkenau selon J.-C. Pressac (1989) [French]:
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF9011xx21.html
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF9011xx22.html

2) Réponse à Jean-Claude Pressac sur le problème des chambres à gaz (1994):
[French]:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1991-1994/RF94reponseJCP1.html
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1991-1994/RF94reponseJCP2.html
[English]:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Faurisson1.html

3) Jean-Claude Pressac, version 2000 (2000) [French]:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1995-2000/RF000331.html

4) Ten Years Ago, Jean-Claude Pressac’s Capitulation (2005) [English]:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Zundel1/faurisson.htm

I note that the member who posted these links added: “Will someone please send those to bishop Williamson? I would do it myself, but a few words of encouragement by a coreligionist might be a good idea.”

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:07 | #

Pressac’s fate reminds me of that of Buckley.  He pimped himself for Jews and at the end was shown no gratitude.  I wonder how Buckley slept on the National Review cruise after Podhoretz ripped into him for daring criticize the war in Iraq.  He was probably too tranquilized to care that deeply, but I hope at some points near the end he realized that he had lived his life as a shabbas goy, a vile piece of shit.

GW, if you have contact info for Bishop Williamson, could you forward it to me?  Thanks

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:01 | #

Holocaust revisionism again, I see.

Look is there any evidence for any of the following propositions:

a. bishop Williamson has racial views significantly to the right of the mainstream

b. reading and being persuaded by his work is likely to make Joe Public entertain racial views significantly to the right of the mainstream

c. if the Holocaust not happening is generally accepted as a historical fact, this is likely to move anything, public policy, popular culture, academia, whatever, in a pro-white direction

Now I actually think c. might be true, insomuch as atm alot of Joe Publics are made to feel a sense of racial guilt for what the Nazis did. However, I must confess I haven’t the fogiest how a bishop, i.e. not a credible historian, will be able to achieve that.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:07 | #

As a follow up:

Irving actually studied Germany during the Nazi period. He was actually a bleeding expert on it. If he ipso facto lost any sort of mainstream credibility the minute he became a “holocaust denier”, then what chance a dilettante holding similar views? And if Williamson has no chance at mainstream credibility, then what is any of this, I mean the story about him, but a bizarre WN soap opera?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:46 | #

“bishop Williamson has racial views significantly to the right of the mainstream”  (—Alex Zeka)

The mainstream media?  What mainstream do you mean, Alex?  If you mean the mainstream media, that’s not hard:  everybody, including everybody alive today and everybody who ever lived since the world began, has had racial views significantly to the “right” of the mainstream media.  That includes the Jews who control the mainstream media (their “leftist” views on race are strictly for export, meant solely for goyische consumption — they never touch the stuff themselves, they only produce it and force it on others.  They themselves give it a very wide berth — when was the last time there was a huge trend of Jews marrying Negroes or Jewish pornographers putting women identified as Jewish, instead of default-assumed as shiksas, in their Negro-on-white porn?  Ever seen that?  No of course not, nor will you.).

I read both of Alex’s comments there three or four times and came away unclear as to the point he was making.  Alex, could you state your point in one plain sentence?  My sense is you are against this bishop and against scholarly research findings which tend to cast doubt on the ©Ho£o€au$t®™ SV (©Ho£o€au$t®™, Standard Version) — is that right?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:15 | #

Alex,

The point here is that the media which reviles Williamson, the Pope who orders him to recant, the Catholic heirarchy which dismisses him from his position in the SSPX seminary in Buenos Aires know nothing of these events in Europe between 1941 and 1945 ... nothing, that is, but that they must follow the version disseminated by the governmentally enforced channels or they are as inhuman as the devil Adolf himself.

I am wholly against neo-Marxist government enforcement at the best of times, but when the item in question is utilised to render my teenage daughter guilty by lineage - she being English and therefore European, and therefore anti-semitic - of race-crimes against equally innocent Jewish children c.1941, I begin to suspect that there is more to this than simple history.

If your scepticism of revisionism is motivated by distrust of those who seek to purify Slav-murderers of guilt, I understand.  The latter can never be purifed.  But that does not mean that all the sins attributed to them are bona fide or properly described.

Richard Williamson is being victimised, as have thousands of others.  That should tell you that something is wrong.  Do not allow your entirely proper feeling for the injustices visited upon Slavs by the Germans to blind you to the possible injustices visited today upon those who express scepticism of the official Holocaust narrative.  Hold to justice and to truth in both cases.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:10 | #

Fred,

“Mainstream” means Joe Public, who, in case you haven’t noticed, is relatively indifferent to racial issues, or at least quite unaware of them. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Williamson is attracted to HR for any reasons other than dilettante historical curiosity.

GW,

Whether or not the Nazis murdered X million slavs isn’t that important - if they did a. others have murdered as many, and b. there aren’t any Nazis any more. Which is half the point: what will alter as a result of the nazis being exculpated?

But what is more crucial is that, even if defending the reputation of the Nazis has any purpose, bishop Williamson is blatantly not the person to do it. He’s a dilettante. Irving, as an otherwise respectable historian, was the person for the job, yet even he became disrespectable and UNIVERSALLY* reviled once he became a Holocaust revisionist. If HR is so important, the only way towards it are very fact-based and incremental studies, by either qualified historians or by dilettantes with a comprehesnive command of the facts/data, and a willingness and ability to use these when accussed of anti-semitism, etc.

Once again, do you think that this controversy has turned a single person worldwide to the WN cause? If so, how?

*yes, universally includes the MSM, bu it also includes the general public who are clearly not pro-WN enough to do anything, y’know, pro-WN.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:17 | #

One last thing…

Wilders may be more successful and popular because of his pro-Israel position, but there’s a more obvious reason. People actually care what Muslims believe and how they act. At the same time, most people don’t care, except for the sake of showing their moral superiority, about the exact death counts from over half a century ago. Conclusion: it’s either to get people to be realistic about things that impinge on their lives directly.

To test this claim, answer this: are recent British jobs for British workers strikes caused by a. greater economic hardship making the effects of immigration clearer, or b. recent historical studies showing that 5.5m , rather than 6m, Jews died under Nazism?

Posted by Armor on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:29 | #

“Mainstream” means Joe Public, who, in case you haven’t noticed, is relatively indifferent to racial issues, or at least quite unaware of them. (—alex zeka)

It is dishonest to say that the lack of a proper reaction by the Whites is proof that they have no objection to being genocided. It is also dishonest to ignore the chasm between normal people and the media. By normal people standards, the main stream media is far-left. Far left, in the sense of anti-social and anti-white.

Obviously, the white response to the race-replacement policy has been inadequate. But we know the majority of every white country has always been opposed to third-world immigration. White people resent the presence of immigrants, but are over-scrupulous and afraid that immigrants may receive a raw deal. This is a result of brainwashing by the media. There is nothing inhumane in returning Mexicans to Mexico and Moroccans to Morocco. Even stupid Whites who fawn over Obama don’t like him. They are trying to show that they are not prejudiced. But all the while, White people keep moving out of formerly White cities due to immigration. The lack of a proper reaction from the Whites is due to intimidation, censorship, and more generally: control of our institutions by the race-replacement movement. A number of small political parties have been created specifically to stop immigration. They made little progress because of the foul tactics used by the media and the political establishement. In the Western world, our politicians do not represent the opinion of the majority. Our institutions have been hijacked.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:33 | #

“Fred, ‘Mainstream’ means Joe Public, who, in case you haven’t noticed, is relatively indifferent to racial issues, or at least quite unaware of them.”  (—Alex Zeka)

Are they indifferent?  (I agree with Armor on this, just above.)  Do you recall the thousands of workingmen and middle-class folk who demonstrated massively and spontaneously in support of Enoch Powell after he got into trouble with the overlords following his speech?  Do they qualify as “Joe Public”?  That was forty years ago.  Where are they today?  They’re in their 60s, 70s, and 80s and retired and their children and grandchildren been warned off the subject, warned off even mentioning it in private, by everyone they’ve viewed as an authority figure from the cradle on:  school teachers, clergy, government ministers, MPs, journalists, the BBC, the police, judges, university professors, Jewish-made imported Hollywood movies and television programs, newspaper editors, you name it, if it’s an authority figure they’ve been warned off the subject by it.  Do you call that “indifference on their part”?  Well, if so it’s a bit artificial, no?  I mean ... if Joe Public has no natural objection to being race-replaced, zero as you say, why the need for all the draconian measures, the brainwashing techniques straight out of Orwell, the threats, arrests, trials, the examples made of transgressors in order to “encourager les autres,” the whole totalitarian lockdown?  Doesn’t that rather give the opposite impression, namely that government is frantically trying to suppress Joe Public’s natural instincts of opposition in regard to this matter?

“I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Williamson is attracted to H[olocaust[R[evisionism] for any reasons other than dilettante historical curiosity.”

By the way, is exposing a blatant lie of huge proportions properly referred to as “revisionism”?  I know, that’s what the revisionists call themselves, in preference to “Holocaust deniers,” a name they (rightly) reject. But I don’t know, I think of them as truth-lovers, not “revisionists.” 

Anyway, if a monstrous lie has been made into Western Civilization’s Central Event of the Past Three Thousand Years that’s big news, isn’t it, Alex?  I would imagine everyone would be interested in that story, not just professional historians — “dilettantes” also, as you term them.  So what’s wrong with this bishop’s interest in this matter?  And what about the billions who swallow the Holohoax lie?  Are they all professional historians?  Clearly not, so why aren’t you testily calling them “dilettantes” too, the way you’re calling the bishop?  Is it only one side whose adherents get called “dilettantes” for not being professional historians, or is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?

Moreover, given that the bishop is a Catholic priest, and the Jews have partly succeeded in replacing the Christian religion in the West with the religion of Judaeo-Holocaustian Race-Replacementianity based on Holocaust Worship (a Jewish-imposed religion that says, in part, that because of this thing they call “The Holocaust” all Euro-race peoples have to atone by submitting to undergo race-replacement by non-whites), it’s normal for him to develop a deep interest in the process that’s shoving his religion aside, don’t you think?  I’d say it would be normal even for a priest who’s not also a professional historian — or am I guilty of excessive zeal there, or something?

“GW, whether or not the Nazis murdered X million slavs isn’t that important [...W]hat is more crucial is that, even if defending the reputation of the Nazis has any purpose, bishop Williamson is blatantly not the person to do it.  He’s a dilettante.”

Where has Bishop Williamson “defended the reputation of the Nazis,” Alex?

“If HR is so important, the only way towards it are very fact-based and incremental studies, by either qualified historians or by dilettantes with a comprehesnive command of the facts/data, and a willingness and ability to use these when accussed of anti-semitism, etc.”

May a person who’s not an expert nevertheless read the opinions of experts on the subject and form an opinion based thereon?  That seems to be what Bishop Williamson has done.  That’s not legitimate?  That’s also what I have done, arriving at the same conclusion he seems to have.

“Do you think that this controversy [over whether or not the Holocaust story is true] has turned a single person worldwide to the WN cause?”

Was someone claiming it has?

Alex Zeka blogged here.  Then he started to show signs of testiness and never blogged further.  As is clear, he’s still testy.  What is it about this blog that’s got you testy, Alex?  Wait — let me guess ... This blog is become too “racist” and “anti-Semitic” for you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:36 | #

I remember the last I heard from Alex here was when he chided me for saying people risked prison if they publicly opposed forced race-replacement.  My saying that had gotten him testy, apparently.  This was a couple of years ago.  Looks as if he’s still testy.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:42 | #

I’m in the same boat as Fred; I’m confused by Alex.  I think Alex confuses Alex.

Whether or not the Nazis murdered X million slavs isn’t that important - if they did a. others have murdered as many, and b. there aren’t any Nazis any more. Which is half the point: what will alter as a result of the nazis being exculpated?

But what is more crucial is that, even if defending the reputation of the Nazis has any purpose, bishop Williamson is blatantly not the person to do it. He’s a dilettante. Irving, as an otherwise respectable historian, was the person for the job, yet even he became disrespectable and UNIVERSALLY* reviled once he became a Holocaust revisionist. If HR is so important, the only way towards it are very fact-based and incremental studies, by either qualified historians or by dilettantes with a comprehesnive command of the facts/data, and a willingness and ability to use these when accussed of anti-semitism, etc.

Once again, do you think that this controversy has turned a single person worldwide to the WN cause? If so, how?

*yes, universally includes the MSM, bu it also includes the general public who are clearly not pro-WN enough to do anything, y’know, pro-WN.

Exculpating Nazis isn’t important.  Apparently GW’s post flew right by you.  The fact that Jews are able to use Western governments and the media to prevent any dissension, any scholarly inquiry into this part of WWII is important.  As is the fact that the Holocaust blood libel is used to prevent any resistance to Westerners’ displacement by racial aliens.  As is requiring accuracy in historical research.

You say that Williamson is a dilletante, but then you say later that you’d accept a dilettante who has a comprehensive command of the facts and data.  Perhaps you could at least show first then where Williamson’s knowledge is deficient.

BTW, I wonder if Williamson’s promising to read Pressac isn’t the same sort of veiled message Cole was sending when he gave his reading list in his farewell letter.

You say that Irving was the person to do the job, yet he became disreputable and reviled once he started denying parts of the Holocaust dogma.  Yet you haven’t shown that this was because what he was saying was wrong.  James Watson became even more universally reviled when he said that Africans aren’t as intelligent as Europeans.  Does that mean he was wrong?  That’s not just a rhetorical question- I’d like you to answer it.

Even if Irving is universally reviled, the public is getting its opinion from the MSM on this matter anyhow.  How many people who revile him have actually read anything on the topic.  They’ve ‘seen the pictures’ and that’s about it.

Williamson may not have turned anyone to WN based on the content of his interview.  But the insane witch hunt that ensued has surely made some people wonder just who is in charge.

Conclusion: it’s either to get people to be realistic about things that impinge on their lives directly.

Ok, what is the other option?

To test this claim, answer this: are recent British jobs for British workers strikes caused by a. greater economic hardship making the effects of immigration clearer, or b. recent historical studies showing that 5.5m , rather than 6m, Jews died under Nazism?

The more important question is why does the government pursue policies that disadvantage the majority population?  Getting worked up about Italian foreign workers who live on a floating hotel is misdirection encouraged by the media.  The native British should be more concerned about the racial aliens inside the gates who are in the process of genociding them.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:15 | #

Armor,

Yes, Joe Public would object to being genocided - everyone does, it’s not like there’s a spectrum of opinion which ranges from wanting to be genocided to objecting to it. What actually sepurates a WN from Joe Public is that the latter doesn’t *realise* he is being genocided. Does Williamson think we’re being genocided? Is he likely to convince anyone of this fact thro’ HR? What the hell is the link between number of jews killed and probability that whites are being genocided?

Fred,

Enoch Powell was a long time ago. Besides which, he was successful by *not* naming the jew, *not* revising historical casualty counts, but by pointing out the harms of immigration *here and now*. Like Wilders, and unlike all the Holocaust revisionists on the planet.

So what if billions swallow the holohoax? What makes you think that denial of race differences and all that is more likely to disappear once the holohoax is no longer believed in?

“Western Civilization’s Central Event of the Past Three Thousand Years “?! As oppossed to the Holodomor, etc.? Plenty of people think Stalin more evil than Hitler (and hence that the Holocaust is not the central event, unique evil, nasty Germans, etc, etc, etc.) whilst swallowing the 6m figure.

Re: Watson. What he had to say has relevance in the here and now.

Re: Irving. My point was that if *anyone* can profitably deny the Holocaust w/ credibility, he could. He couldn’t, Q.E.D. Revision is possible (as a more moderate position is easier to defend), butonly if the revisers is in a position to get the relevant facts and arguments into the public consciousness once he is accused of anti-semitism. Williamson, evidently, is in no such position. This doesn’t reflect poorly on him or his courage in any way, it just is a fact.

The nonsense about testiness is, quite frankly, too silly to reply to. I stopped blogging because I became otherwise busy, and also partly because MR got taken over by a collection of loons, not, incidentally, including anyone who has so far commented on this thread. (I’d name them, but you probably know who they are and I don’t want to start an irrelevant flame war).

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:26 | #

Dasein,

Is WN support for HR just a matter of free speech? Perhaps a worthwhile tactic, given that free speech in general aids WN.

A figure can be reviled by the press yet supported by the people, but only if what he says is a matter of imidiate concern for the people. Wilders on islamic aggression is, Enoch Powell was, Watson on IQ differences wasn’t (altho’ what he says would at least be relevant if accepted), the precise number of jews killed is a matter of no concern to the public. Hence why they accept whatever they’re told.

The Rule: The more something impinges on a person’s life, the more un-pc they are willing to be about it.

Re: the brit riots. If they are media misdirection, why are they panicking the pc press so much? Johann Hari thinks they’re directed at the wrong target, which tells me that they are directed at the right one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-strike-yes-ndash-but-not-at-this-target-1544948.html

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:30 | #

His Excellency should browse Codoh Revisionist Forum

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5360

An example, if you please, of these victories? 

I could cite the case of Jean-Claude Pressac. For years, that protégé of the Klarsfeld couple had presumed to state he’d discovered proof of the “Nazi gas chambers’” existence. A book of his, in 1993-1994, was laden with praise throughout the big media. In 1994 I replied with a booklet that earned me new criminal proceedings. Happily I got Pressac subpoenaed to appear at the trial. This was in May 1995, in Paris. His collapse under examination was spectacular. He never got back up again. To her credit, Valérie Igounet, a French historian hostile to revisionism, reproduced in her 2000 book Histoire du négationnisme en France a sort of act of surrender signed by Pressac. The latter, in effect, had ended up admitting that the dossier on the German concentration camps was “rotten” — his word, that — with too many lies. He even added that a definitively “rotten” dossier had been got up around wartime suffering that was all too real and — in his own phrase — that dossier was “bound for the rubbish bins of history”.

Surprising! What became of Pressac?

His Jewish friends, of course, disowned him. He died in 2003, aged 59. The media’s silence was total. Pressac is one of the host of people who have proved unable to take up the challenge I launched back in the 1970s. At that time I’d demonstrated how the case for the existence of the alleged Nazi gas chambers ran into some radical impossibilities. The Leuchter Report and the Rudolf Report, not to mention a few other reports or views expressed by men of science, subsequently confirmed my demonstration.

http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/faurisson-iranintvw.htm

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:52 | #

What the hell is the link between number of jews killed and probability that whites are being genocided?

Posted by alex zeka

The link is that any notion of Western survival is cast as the same kind of “prejudice” that led to the so called Holocaust.
Racialism, Nationalism, Western Civilization, etc…are all demonized with “the Holocaust” as the adjective in their denunciation.

As for the Bishop, I don’t really know what his stand is on racialism. But then I can’t think of any major figure in Christianity today that explicitly stands for Western (White) Civilization.

I guess you take what you get though. Never look a gift horse in the mouth, as they say.

But I’d be careful about building up to much enthusiasm for Mr. Williamson. I doubt he’ll turn into another Kevin MacDonald.

Time will tell though…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:33 | #

According a piece by Faurisson which I once translated for TheCivicPlatform, Pressac ended up completely recanting and admitting there was no solid foundation to the standard version of the Holocau$t.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:40 | #

Oops!  FB cites the views of Faurisson on Pressac which I just referred to in that last post (I posted without seeing FB’s comment).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:45 | #

“The link is that any notion of Western survival is cast as the same kind of ‘prejudice’ that led to the so called Holocaust.  Racialism, Nationalism, Western Civilization, etc…are all demonized with ‘the Holocaust’ as the adjective in their denunciation.”  (—The Narrator)

Alex, you keep making statements to the effect you do not realize the above, explained there by The Narrator.  Is it conceivable?  Are you playing dumb?  How is it possible you didn’t know all that, namely that the Holocau$t hoax is used as the ramrod to ram race-replacement down Euro throats???

Posted by Armor on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:50 | #

Armor,
(...)
What actually sepurates a WN from Joe Public is that the latter doesn’t *realise* he is being genocided. Does Williamson think we’re being genocided? Is he likely to convince anyone of this fact thro’ HR? What the hell is the link between number of jews killed and probability that whites are being genocided? (—Alex Zeka)

I haven’t said a word about the number of Jews killed. From where I post, I go to jail if I enter that debate.

I think most people realize that we are being destroyed, and they do say so, even though they are not allowed to speak freely. Please give me a example where white people have a stronger opinion than about immigration.
Obviously, the brainwashing by the media is not 100% effective. However, it cannot be 0% effective either. It seems to me that you refuse to acknowledge that censorship, brainwashing and intimidation techniques have any effect at all. I think the worst is not the propaganda for immigration and race-mixing, but the censorship by the media and institutions of both normal people, and of intellectuals who would like to take position publically against immigration and race-mixing. The only way people can have a perfectly well-informed opinion is if intelligent people are allowed to speak freely on television about matters of concern to Joe Public. This is not allowed. The result is that the sense of urgency disappears. Every one tends to underestimate the rapidity of the race replacement and some of its effects. But still, most people want immigration to stop. I wish more of them would take personal action to change things, but I won’t blame them for trying to have normal lives regardless.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:23 | #

“As for the Bishop, I don’t really know what his stand is on racialism.”  (—The Narrator)

Read this,

“Now money-men are amongst the most astute and motivated of mortals.  It is inconceivable that they did not see this crash coming.  Consider this text, published in 1905:  ‘We shall create by all the underground methods available to us, and with the aid of gold which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw on the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe.  These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot.  But “ours” they will not touch… we shall take measures to protect our own.’  Now the class warfare planned for 20th century Europe by Communism may have been replaced by race warfare planned for the 21st century globe by means of immigration, but the basic plan, to be achieved by gold through a ‘universal economic crisis,’ has apparently not changed.”

( http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2008/12/prophetic-protocol.html )

and even better, read the following comment of mine together with the link it contains:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/from_todays_papers1/#c68589 .

This is an extraordinary Catholic priest.  For me, he’s a dream come true.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:28 | #

By the way, forgive me — on the Pressac thing (Pressac ended up totally capitulating and agreeing the evidence for the standard version of the Holocau$t was “rotten”) this thread must’ve gotten away from me, and I didn’t realize GW in one of the first comments in the thread had already posted several links to this facet of “revisionism.”  As I also mentioned following Friedrich’s post further down, the reason I was aware of it was a piece by Faurisson which I had translated some months ago for Friedrich’s blog.  Pressac long ago totally collapsed as a supporter of the standard Holocau$t story.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:33 | #

Bishop Williamson is definitely the greatest Catholic priest in the world today of whom I am aware, bar none, the Pope included.  Compared to this bishop, clearly a giant, the current Pope is a pathetic dwarf.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:58 | #

“The link is that any notion of Western survival is cast as the same kind of “prejudice” that led to the so called Holocaust.
Racialism, Nationalism, Western Civilization, etc…are all demonized with “the Holocaust” as the adjective in their denunciation. “

Yeah, the slippery slope argument, which can be destroyed on its own terms. In fact, it’s ludicrously easy to destroy on its own terms - slippery slope arguments are just crap.

Anyway, given that some jews did die under nazism, why would it be impossible to argue that nationalism leads to the holocaust if said holocaust happened to involve 1m dead jews, not 6m. Remember, numbers aren’t the issue here, otherwise the multicult could never argue that Nazism is worse than communism/socialism. Joe Public just doesn’t do numbers, especially on stuff that just doesn’t impinge - IN ANY WAY VISIBLE TO HIM - on his life.

Armor,

The no of jews killed is what the Williamson controversy is all about.

Are you arguing that people realise they’re being genocided, but don’t act because they’re afraid of gov’t coercion? What more is there to be afraid of than genocide?

Most people do realise that something is amiss, but these feelings are inchoate. They do not clearly realise that this is genocide, or that genocide matters*. Education about EGI is useful in this regard, debates about jewish casualty counts, aren’t.

*As in “there’ll be fewer whites next century, but how does that affect me or my family and friends?”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:00 | #

“Is WN support for HR just a matter of free speech?”  (—Alex Zeka, 7:26 PM)

Not all “WNs” support “HR”:  Guillaume Faye, to take one prominent example,

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n371.htm ,

and there are tons of others.  Constantin von Hoffmeister is one; Ian Jobling is another, though Ian doesn’t consider himself a “white nationalist” (neither do I, but for different reasons than Ian).  And of course, far from all “HRists” support “WN.”  The world’s most prominent “HRist” today has to be Prof. Robert Faurisson, and I have never read a word of his in opposition to immigration.  My guess would be only a minority of the most prominent “HRists” have expressed concerns about race/immigration.  “HR” and “WN” are by no means one and the same group — far from it.

Get with the program, Alex.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:03 | #

Re: the stuff Fred quoted from Williamson’s blog

Elders of Zion - rolls eyes. Is this supposed to be a costume farce? Irrespective of their veracity, building your case on the Protocols is a grade-A way to turn yourself into a public laughing stock. And, yes, that includes all those middle/working class brits who give a shit about islamic aggression, immigrant free-riding on the welfare state, the supply curve for labour getting ramped up to the max, etc.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:07 | #

Fred,

Stop being so pedantic. I obviously meant “those WNs who do support HR, support it for reasons of free speech”.

And von Huff is one of the main reasons I don’t blog here any more. I really couldn’t care less what the puffed up, pseudo-German pansy thinks.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:16 | #

“given that some jews did die under nazism, why would it be impossible to argue that nationalism leads to the holocaust”  (—Alex Zeka)

Everyone at this site is opposed to genocide, so the MR.com brand of nationalism certainly doesn’t “lead to the Holocaust” if we have anything to do with it.  You could argue more convincingly that Jewish-variety attempts to stifle normal, reasonable, healthy nationalism are likelier to lead to people getting extremely angry at Jews and doing something foolish or, worse, criminal.  In other words, you could argue more convincingly that Jewish-type heavy-handed anti-nationalism and totalitarian suppression of nationalism are more likely to lead to people getting outraged and reacting accordingly than is ordinary normal nationalism.  Let the Jews back off and stop interfering outrageously with the normal expressions of people’s nationalistic feeling, and no one will resent them any more than anyone resents the Amish.  They’ll be under no threat whatsoever.

It’s clear Alex was annoyed at this site’s implicit approval of someone’s (Bishop Williamson’s) conclusion that the “revisionists” seem to make valid points the other side have yet to answer adequately.  I have no sympathy with Alex on that score, sorry.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:18 | #

Alex, what gets people angrier at Jews, their ordinary feelings of nationalism or Jewish attempts to prevent them from having ordinary feelings of nationalism?

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:24 | #

Everyone at this site is opposed to genocide, so the MR.com brand of nationalism certainly doesn’t “lead to the Holocaust” if we have anything to do with it.

Irrespective, the point is that if the multicult can argue: racialism => 6m Holocaust, so racialism = bad and convince Joe Public, the can also argue: racialism => 1m Holocaust, so racialism = bad.

This purely because most people don’t have a head for figures, esp. when its something quite theoretic (i.e. doesn’t matter to them in the here and now).

Holocaust affirmers have a case to prove; at the same time, holocaust research will be a product of the victory of WN, not a cause. This is because a. you’re not going to build a popular movement on a historical controversy; and b. a 1m dead jew holocaust can serve the same purpose as a 6m dead jew one (see above).

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:29 | #

what gets people angrier at Jews, their ordinary feelings of nationalism or Jewish attempts to prevent them from having ordinary feelings of nationalism?

The latter, probably. Ordinary feelings of nationalism are more indifference than anger.

Nonetheless, why do you think that acceptance of a lower jew casualty count will be seen by the public as proof that the earlier count was jewish fraud? Remember, the original figure floating about was 20m; that was adjusted down to 6m without the multicult losing any real credibility. I suppose HR will yield something if it’s proven that no Holocaust took place of any sort, but I seriously don’t believe that that conclusion can be proven.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:37 | #

Alex,

HR as a freedom of speech issue probably has the broadest appeal.  For those living in countries where expressing an opinion on numbers or methods can result in jail sentences, this is perhaps the only interest legally allowed.  Most people I’ve talked to are unaware of the penalties for dissenting from Holocaust dogma.  They don’t even know what ‘denial’ means.

The riots in Britain allow the masses to think they have pushed the limits of xenophobic intolerance.  But while they complain about Italians workers living on floating hotels, they ignore the racial aliens in their midst who may one day inherit their country.  It’s managed dissent.  Like complaining about immigration from Eastern Europe.  Or focusing on illegal immigration and asylum fraud.  Or demanding that racial aliens fully integrate into British society (i.e. miscegenate).  Just because people become motivated doesn’t mean they will direct their anger at the right target or pursue sensible goals.

Posted by Armor on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:55 | #

Armor, The no of jews killed is what the Williamson controversy is all about.  (—Alex Zeka)

The thing is: I have never said a word about that.

(I can anticipate your reply: Yes, but the n° of jews killed is what the Williamson controversy is all about.)

Most people do realise that something is amiss, but these feelings are inchoate.

More precisely: Due to censorship, these feelings cannot be expressed in the public sphere. It doesn’t mean that people are stupid and can’t see. What will it take for you to admit that most people are deeply opposed to race-replacement? a civil war, I suppose.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:56 | #

I don’t mind some soft-peddling of, or not even mentioning,  the Jewish Question when appealing to mainstream audiences.; as a tactic, but never must addressing it be abandoned as part of our ultimate strategy for success.  Nick Griffin has done this, I think properly, for now, to achieve electability.  But Arthur Kemp (a semi-closeted Nordicist and National Socialist) has his ear.  Kemp’s White History site can be accessed through the BNP site, though with several degrees of separation. 

But the real intellectual powerhouses of the outfit is obviously C.U.N.T. and Glyn Roach.

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:01 | #

Nonetheless, why do you think that acceptance of a lower jew casualty count will be seen by the public as proof that the earlier count was jewish fraud? Remember, the original figure floating about was 20m; that was adjusted down to 6m without the multicult losing any real credibility. I suppose HR will yield something if it’s proven that no Holocaust took place of any sort, but I seriously don’t believe that that conclusion can be proven.

What’s most interesting is to watch the efforts made to prevent any discussion of Holocaust dogma.  This says more than any revision of numbers or methodology ever will.  Is it still a Holocaust if there were no gas chambers, the figure was less than 6 million, and there was no official extermination policy?  I think most people would say yes.  Whatever the truth is here, there are more susceptible foundations of the current system, ‘no hereditary basis for racial differences’ being probably tops.  Here WNs are on rock solid ground and can expect the most support from 3rd parties.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:09 | #

It’s managed dissent.  Like complaining about immigration from Eastern Europe. (—Dasein)

In Brittany, the main newspaper has published one or two articles about the irritating British invasion, complete with maps showing where the greatest number of Brits can be found. Of course, we are not allowed to have that kind of information about the Turks, or even the French.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:13 | #

For me, Alex isn’t speaking plainly as regards his objections to this log entry.  From where I sit, at first reading he seems to be going around in circles but that’s probably me and my inability to follow his closely-reasoned case, and I need to go back and re-read the thread more carefully.  But I suspect it won’t be worth anyone’s while for me to go back, comment-by-comment, and disentangle exactly what arguments Alex is making and then posting a counter-argument, so I’m dropping it and therefore ceding the argument to Alex.  I close by saying:  1) no one on our side (whether Alex is on our side or not, I don’t know — he seems to get testy at the most innocent discussion here) — no one on our side thinks Jews having been killed, no matter whether it be it six Jews killed or six trillion, in any way whatsoever weakens Euronationalism’s total, absolute, and unquestioned legitimacy now, then, or in the future till the end of time; 2) the Jews are milking the Holocau$t story for all it’s worth as a bludgeon to beat back Euronationalism on grounds “Euronationalism = Auschwitz”; 3) Euronationalism’s prospects for once again being viewed by ordinary people and élites alike as normal would be enhanced at least somewhat in the event it became widely known that the Holocaust never happened as claimed; 4) I agree with Alex that whether the Jews have the “six-million-gassed” story to work with or the version I accept, 300,000 dying in typhus-and-starvation camps which the Germans wouldn’t let them leave, they, the Jews, will absolutely milk it for all it’s worth as a bludgeon for beating down Euronationalism — but so what?  What’s Alex’s point here?  We all know that already.  But we also know there are all sorts of the most primordial and urgent reasons for getting to the truth of what happened to World War II’s Jews regardless of the ways in which sickening Jewish liars try to use and distort history.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:27 | #

Alex,

You are right that there is a disconnect between nationalism as populism and nationalism as political theory.  This disconnect is one of our many problems, and something I continually raise here in protest at the Judeo-centric view of so many friends and colleagues.

But ... we are not alone in the disconnection stakes because there is also a disconnect in Jewish race-politics.  In the way the standard Holocaust narrative is used against our children’s sense of peoplehood and self-value we see precisely an application from political theory to popular opinion.  But the disconnect here is that that opinion is non-elective.  It is produced ... coerced ... in a totalitarian way.

So I conclude that whilst you are right that there is no direct engagement of HR to our children’s sense of peoplehood and self-worth, populism is not the issue here.  Power is the issue, and all we have to fight power is truth and justice.

That fight is not in the open, under the eyes of our people.  Its outcome is not decided by our people, who are supine before whatever is placed in front of them.  It is an intellectual guerilla war, and the men who are fighting it on our behalf are doing so with great courage and sacrifice.  Don’t be too quick to dismiss them.

You should have talked to me privately about the posting issue.  You still can.  It is not helpful to us to have your voice fall silent.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:34 | #

“Is it still a Holocaust if there were no gas chambers, the figure was less than 6 million, and there was no official extermination policy?”  (—Dasein)

 

Once the debunking of the myth of the “gas chambers” and the myth of the “official extermination policy” (a debunking which has already been achieved but not permitted by the Jews to become widely known) becomes widely known, it will be inescapable that the Jews (the bolsheviks in Russia, Hungary, and elsewhere, helped by their communist Jewish supporters in Roosevelt’s and Truman’s Washington D.C.) committed by far and away the greatest killings, pogroms, and genocides of any group, during the 30-year period from 1917 through 1947.  Today’s Jews don’t want to have to face this fact.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:52 | #

Fiammetta Venner, who intervenes in person during the broadcast of the Swedish television, is an active militant of the French homosexual movement, a pro-abortionist and an advocate of secularism.

From this page:-

http://www.dici.org/actualite_read.php?id=1295

... speculating on the political background to the Williamson controversy.  Williamson himself says that the liberal Catholic bishops have never forgiven Ratzinger for becoming pope, and sure enough the issue of bringing the SSPX back into the fold has resulted in calls for Ratzinger to step down.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:30 | #

I don’t know that someone needs to be a “professional” historian to notice and point out that there’s no physical evidence for 11 million dead in Nazi death camps.  I don’t even know that someone needs to be a “dilettante” historian for that.

I think someone just needs descended testicles.

Besides, since when is history the realm of “professionals”?  It isn’t rocket science.

Obviously I don’t hammer home revisionism, so on some level I realize it isn’t something Euro ethno-nationalists all need to be drumming.  But that doesn’t mean I’m going to give people a bunch of crap for doing so, either.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:38 | #

Anyway, given that some jews did die under nazism, why would it be impossible to argue that nationalism leads to the holocaust if said holocaust happened to involve 1m dead jews, not 6m.

A good point, but let’s be honest here.  If the public found out that the holocaust was a lie cooked up by Jews and communists (insofar as the two are actually separate categories), it would be devastating to the entire race-replacement edifice, and permanently ruin Jewish standing in the eyes of the world.  They’d be finished.

Not that this is any likelier than a pig flying…

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:49 | #

I see HR as like one of those wacked-out, weirdo sort of things that Jews have historically liked to pursue; a “high risk strategy” as KMac might say.  It carries high risks, but offers immense rewards.  It certainly isn’t for all of us.  And Alex probably has a point, that the larger body not into HR should probably refrain from approving of it, at least.

I’m just a double-carrier of that “too proud to lie” camp.  And I like playing Devil’s Advocate.

Which brings me back to the same old point: I, as a descendant of Englishmen, have been born into a tradition of truth-telling, openness, and honesty.  We pride ourselves on freedom of thought.  And I’ll be buggered if some frothing-at-the-mouth Levantine tribe of totalitarians is going to tell me what I can and can’t believe.  If we can debate the whos, hows, and whys of 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the American Civil War, JFK, the moon landings, and the goddamned gulags, well then the holocaust is on the table too.  IT ISN’T A SACRED RELIC OF MY RELIGION.  It’s sacred to others, not me.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:51 | #

I’m just a double-carrier of that “too proud to lie” camp

Make that gene, not camp.

Now that I think about it, if I knew nothing of ethno-nationalism or surrounding issues, I’d be more likely to support it, not less.  That’s just how I was raised; tell me I can’t say something, and I’m going to find a way to say it and have it make perfect sense.  Tell me it’s illegal to say it, and you might as well put Christmas presents under it.

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:58 | #

What’s most interesting is to watch the efforts made to prevent any discussion of Holocaust dogma.  This says more than any revision of numbers or methodology ever will.

BINGO!  If there are no HR, then no one gets to see what psychos Jews are.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:25 | #

I think Bishop Williamson’s 2005 statement below (after the introduction just before it), which touches on, among other topics, race and immigration, a statement which I linked above somewhere, merits being reproduced here.  This is an absolutely extraordinary, extraordinary, extraordinary statement for a Catholic priest to make, and may God bless and defend this great, godly bishop for making it:  God bless you, Bishop Williamson!
______

[Introduction by the DailyCatholic.org web-site]  In his “Thoughts for November” from the Traditional List, His Excellency provides some sobering thoughts about the boiling cauldron that is Europe today, especially France, for they have forsaken Christ and His True Church.  The result of man’s convoluted ideas of equality of race, sex and creed have created confusion, corruption and chaos.  Too often society, in its ennui and thirst for pleasure, is lulled into lukewarmness, being lured by the modern conveniences, forgetting Our Lord and Savior.  Soft minds and lazy bodies with a hardening of hearts are the harbinger of trouble, and that is what we are faced with today everywhere.  Have you looked at France lately?  The end result of two centuries of turning their back on Him Who died for them.  The infidels are at the gate:  Eurabia is inevitable.  Yes, Paris is burning!  A more sobering thought:  Think of the souls burning in hell because those who should know refused to do God’s Will.  [end of introduction]

DENIAL OF CHRIST CREATES CHAOS 

Nov. 14, 2005

by Bishop Richard Williamson

At the risk of being called a racist, a Nazi, an anti-Semite and Heaven knows what else, let me try to talk a bit of Catholic uncommon sense concerning the troubles that have broken out in the last few weeks in several cities in France.

At the moment of my electronizing — not the same thing as writing! — it seems as though the imposing of a curfew will calm down the problem short-term, and that the French tax payer’s money — what else? — is due to make it sweeter medium-term.  However, in the long term, if civil war does not break out this time round it is sure to break out in a few years’ time and not only in France, but also in other European nations once Christian but now liberal, whose liberalism has imported a large population from abroad, not assimilated yet and not likely to be in future.

This immigration has taken place in France, Great Britain, Germany and also the USA, amongst other countries, especially since World War Two, for two main reasons.  Firstly, the Europeans in these countries wanted to enjoy the conveniences of materialism without the inconvenience of having babies.  So there were not enough workers for their factories or for all the menial tasks henceforth beneath their dignity as university graduates, university degrees having become as common as daisies.  Secondly, the enemies of God, seeing, as usual, farther ahead than His friends, foresaw in the immigration of an alien population a great means of diluting the national identity of countries which by their long and proud history risked not easily being absorbed into the Antichrist’s New World Order.

However, neither of these reasons would have come into play had not liberalism washed out the common sense of these nations.  For as common sense has it, “Birds of a feather flock together,” and it is not normal to push people together who do not belong together.  But liberalism with its false equality and false charity would override common sense, and would make a point of defying it by doing everything possible to undo national identity.  Once again, here is a punishment the apostate nations have deserved.

For if they had kept the Faith of St Paul they would never have let themselves be deceived by the liberals’ false equality and charity, which are no more than a parody of Christian equality and charity.  St Paul says, “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female.  For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3: 27, 28)  Similarly, “… putting on the new man, him who is renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of Him Who created him.  Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free.  But Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3: 10, 11).

Notice how in each of these quotations, St Paul frames the equality of different human races, classes and sexes within Christ.  In other words the equality is before God, and will only be fulfilled in Heaven.  St Paul would never have dreamt of denying or wiping out the inequality of human differences before men.  As to the inequality in this life between Jew and Greek, see Romans and Galatians; between bond and free, see Philemon; between man and woman, see Ephesians and Colossians.  The will of God for men on Earth is that Catholic save Jew, that the man free look after the bondsman, and that the man be head of the woman.  So when the white men give up on saving [i.e., on seeking to convert] Jews, [give up] looking after other races, and [give up] leading their womenfolk, it is altogether normal for them to be punished respectively by the domination of Jewish finance, by the refusal of the non-white races to follow, and by rampant feminism.

For by refusing Christ these whites no longer understand the divine dimension of the true equality between men.  Retaining however from Christianity, because it suits their pride, the sense of the value of every man, then all eternity’s equality has to be squeezed into this little life on Earth, where it necessarily crushes the hierarchies willed by God between races, classes, and sexes.  So by affirming the equality of men without Christ and without eternal life, these white men betray alike Jew and bond and woman.

In chronological order, before Christ, nobody in their senses would have dreamt of denying the inequality of different races, classes and sexes.  When Christ came, nobody in their senses imagined that men’s equality in Christ wiped out these differences, it transcended or rose above them.  However post-Christian modern man, by refusing anything transcendent or anyone above him, has lost all grip on reality, and in all likelihood it will take rather more than a few thousand cars getting burnt [in the nightly Paris riots] for him to see straight once more.

Then what?  Then we need to pray that the much greater disasters soon to take place will open as many eyes as possible, to save as many souls as possible, and if the white men still refuse to convert, let us pray for some great conversions amongst Jews, Muslims and blacks so that they may take over where the whites have left off, and may continue to show us the way to Heaven.  So long as God is served, all honor to His servants, of any race, class or sex!

(Be careful how that last paragraph is interpreted:  a Catholic priest is of course bound to add precisely those sorts of thoughts and language to a discussion such as the above.  That final paragraph changes strictly naught of what is expressed in the preceding text.)

Amazing, amazing, amazing text this is.  Profoundly beautiful.  Riveting text!  It’s what I’ve been looking for but had despaired of ever finding!  Now my despairing is over!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:33 | #

Here’s the link to the bishop’s statement I posted above:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Nov/nov14lit.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:45 | #

This guy posting the porn, by the way, is Jewish, would be my guess (he’s upset over the above talk about the Holocau$t), and is too disgustingly, repulsively filthy to realize or to care that in doing what he’s doing, in “fighting” the way he chooses to “fight,” he’s only proving 100% correct some of the unflattering things a few of us point out now and again as too commonly characteristic of Jews.  By the way, he always waits until a time when GW will have gone to bed, so that his personal expression of Jewishness, his posting for all to see of the essence of a particular type of Jewishness, will remain up as long as possible.  Does anyone want to see the thoroughly repulsive essence of a certain type of Jewishness?  Look at the way in which this disgusting Jew comes here and expresses his ... ethnicity.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:09 | #

Yeah, the slippery slope argument, which can be destroyed on its own terms. In fact, it’s ludicrously easy to destroy on its own terms - slippery slope arguments are just crap.

Posted by Posted by alex zeka on February 14, 2009, 09:58 PM

Yet you keep telling us how effective they are in the minds of the masses.

Anyway, given that some jews did die under nazism, why would it be impossible to argue that nationalism leads to the holocaust if said holocaust happened to involve 1m dead jews, not 6m. Remember, numbers aren’t the issue here, otherwise the multicult could never argue that Nazism is worse than communism/socialism. 

Posted by Posted by alex zeka

Oh no, no, no…...numbers are the issue here. People are being thrown in jail for simply questioning the numbers.
The fact is there is ZERO physical evidence that the Nazis attempted to mass murder anyone. The circumstantial evidence is weak at best.

To paraphrase you, once the Holocaust is proved a lie, why would it be impossible to argue that the Holohoax leads to White genocide if said genocide is caused by belief in the Holohoax?

 

Joe Public just doesn’t do numbers, especially on stuff that just doesn’t impinge - IN ANY WAY VISIBLE TO HIM - on his life

Posted by Posted by alex zeka

You might like to think Joe Public isn’t adding up 2 and 2, but I can assure you with great certainty, HE IS.

A recent poll found that nearly a third of Europeans (publicly) blamed jews for the current economic crisis. How many more feel the same but are not willing to openly say so, as yet?

And as polls have consistently shown, THE MAJORITY of Whites are absolutely enraged over the current open borders policy of their governments.

Seems being financially ruined and facing genocide in your own country for the sake of not offending the “Chosen” and their anti-Western ideology kinda impinges in a very visible way in Joe Public’s life.

Small lies can linger for centuries, but large ones crumble under the weight of the investigation that they engender.
That is why people are being thrown in jail for investigating the validity of the “Holocaust”.

But the facts are out there. And despite your protests the numbers remain conspicuously important, http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2008/03/victor-gets-spoils-but-who-is-victor.html

...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:48 | #

The Narrator, indisuptably in the very top rank of internet bloggers, has posted a link, in his post just above, to a comment over at his own blog, SignalsFromTheBrink.  I just finished reading that comment.  It’s a MUST READ.  It trails off into numerous higly relevant quotes from earlier in the XXth Century:  don’t stop before you’re read all of those.  Here’s the link:

http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2008/03/victor-gets-spoils-but-who-is-victor.html

Posted by Jupiter on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:59 | #

I am not going to to take a position on this one way or another as to what the actual truth is. However, ther is a direct line from the prosecution of Bishop Willimason and the crinalization of protest speech against the racial dispossessin of Europeans at the hands of muslims

Posted by Jupiter on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:13 | #

Is there a connection between Europes degenerate culture-don’t pretend that it isn’t-and the prosecution-persecution. of the Bishop. Isn’‘t it interesting that in more socially conservative and religiously fundamentalist America the is a much greater degree of free speech(for the time being at least).

The state should never be allowed to determine the truth. This was the argument given by Noam Chomsky in his defense of Robert Furrisson.

The muslims will clean the cultural and life-style degenerates out of Europe. This might be the price Europe is paying for going atheist. Maybe there is nothing worth defending. It may be intellectually cool to be an atheist. But will it be really cool when the muslims exterminate you all?

Europe is a place where multimillionaire pedaphiles such as Pete Townsend get a free pass from the state.

Posted by ROBERT CROSS on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:56 | #

The holocau$t is the lynch-pin of jewish power over the west,thier achilles heel ,which once destroyed will destroy thier hegemony over the white europeans,this is why they viciously defend it and deny any attempt to bring the matter into the light of day.When so many different countries wade in to prosecute one man leads one to the conclusion that something is not quite as it seems concerning the holohoax,are we all living under German law ,for they seem to think that they can prosecute any-one in the world for what is after all an opinion,which is the best example of why people should regard it with scepticism,who gets locked up for proclaiming that the world is a sphere?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:56 | #

In his comment above of Feb. 14 (11:52 PM) GW posts a link to a Dici.org page discussing the concealed politics (surely just a tiny fraction) behind the deliberate “setting-up” of Bishop Williamson in that Swedish TV interview — deliberate “setting-up” by, among others, allies of the militant French pro-abortion lesbians who hate the present pope for being “conservative” (which of course he isn’t:  if he’s anything, this pope is a flaming liberal who also caves repeatedly to organized Jewish pressure instead of telling the Jews exactly where they can get off). 

The dici.org link GW posted sometimes goes to the right page but, bizarrely, other times to an unrelated page in French about Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard.  If that happens, find the little “English” button part-way down the left-hand column, click on it, and on the page that opens find the site’s Search feature also down the left-hand margin.  Type “Richard Williamson” into the Search box and hit “OK.”  On the page that opens, find the sub-heading “Behind the Interview of Bishop Williamson to the Swedish Television.”  Click on “> to continue” just underneath to the right.  The sought-after page will open.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:19 | #

the numbers do matter.

If it could proved that ‘only’ 5 million died in the holocaust, well that would still be significant. But what if it was only 3 million, only 1 million, 500,000? As the numbers get lower the whole genocide idea starts to look suspect, long since passing Soviet crimes heading in the opposite direction.

Without the holocaust the Nazi era only looks like another totalitarian state, at worst. Currently it is portrayed as something unique and perverted, without the holocaust Uncle Joe looks like the historically significant bad guy.

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:00 | #

My experience (albeit limited to friends and family) has been that most people will reflexively reject any attempt to discuss Holocaust dogma.  So I think to some extent Alex is correct.  If you begin outlining the revisionist case against the figure of 6 million, they will say ‘I don’t care if it was less than 6 million, it was still terrible’.  End of conversation.  If you start explaining the revisionist case against gas chambers, they will say ‘I’ve seen the pictures’ (even if it was a delousing chamber in Dachau, they’ve seen that together with film of bulldozed corpses, so they know that terrible things happened to the Jews during the war).  Again, end of conversation.  And you don’t even have to start the conversation by suggesting you want to convince them.  This is the response when remarks are prefaced with ‘this is what the Holocaust deniers are saying’.  By now the narrative is so hard-wired that it is too painful for most people to even consider rejecting it.  And they won’t hold it against those who forced it on us if some parts were exaggerated.  If HR ever wins the day (which would include righteous indignation at being force-fed lies), I suspect it will have relatively little to do with the merit of the case that the revisionists bring forth, which could only persuade that minority of people who are willing to invest a lot of time into learning about the topic.  If you look at a place like the Middle East, HR has won, despite the fact that the majority of the population probably know nothing about the revisionists’ arguments and is perhaps not intelligent or literate enough to even do so.  It could well be that access to sources currently off-limits to revisionist scholars will make their case absolutely indisputable at some point in the future. But by the time that happens, I suspect many will be convinced for reasons unrelated to their understanding of the work of Faurisson and co.  For now, everyone knows what the Holocaust was, the same way they know that there is no hereditary basis for racial differences.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:33 | #

“For now, everyone knows what the Holocaust was, the same way they know that there is no hereditary basis for racial differences.”  (—Dasein)

Notice the Jews are who told them what to think on both those topics — the ones who told them both of those lies, in other words.

Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:49 | #

“Bishop Williamson is definitely the greatest Catholic priest in the world today of whom I am aware, bar none, the Pope included.  Compared to this bishop, clearly a giant, the current Pope is a pathetic dwarf.”

Fred, I couldn’t have said it any better, or plainer.

Williamson should at least talk to the Orthodox, and, if he were to abandon Filioquism, would be THE man for the restoration of the Patriarchal See of Rome, absent since 1054.

His willingness to stand alone ‘contra mundum’ reminds me of another man who stood up to the Pope, and ‘effected change’ in the entire West.

His Name?

Martin Luther.

Of course the comparison of what traditionalist RC’s consider an arch-heretic to someone devoted to the concept of the Papacy is an odd one. But Luther was an Augustinian, after all. He merely followed through the concept of Augustine divorced from the Patristic Balance. Surely now, Bishop Williamson has seen that the current pontiff (as Michael Hoffmann has noted on HIS blog) has trashed Christianity in favor of a Racial Supremacism geared toward those the Orthodox call the “Deicides” and for good reason.

The more I read of and BY Williamson, the more I think he is the saviour of the Western Church. If only She would let him!
And this, spoken as a convert to Orthodoxy!

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:37 | #

I should have added that these same peole will be indignant when they learn about the treatment of people like Rudolf.  HR as a freedom of conscience issue (I prefer this to freedom of speech, which is easily dismissed by ‘people can’t scream fire in a crowded theater’) is, in my opinion, the winning track when dealing with Joe Public.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, even if the Holocaust were true in all its exaggerations past and present, there is no point apologizing for it anymore because it only encourages Jews to demand more.  There was an interview on German TV last week that included Charlotte Knobloch (of the Zentralrat der Juden) and Kardinal Lehman (an obsequious Judeophile).  Lehman spent most of the interview licking Knobloch’s ass, and at one point the interviewer asked Lehman something like whether the pope was up to performing the job.  Knobloch jumped right in and started attacking the pope.  You could see Lehman was a bit surprised, but good shabbas goy that he is, he just kept right on with his licking action.  As the Junge Freiheit lead article says, it has become a civil religion.  Kardinal Lehman repents before clergy from the ZDJ.  The SSPX has been very critical of Lehman.  Fred, I’m not sure if you know German in addition to French, but if so, you should check out an interview from last week’s Junge Freiheit with the head of the society in Germany.  It’s not in the archives yet, but I’ll post a link to it once it is.  It’s not the talk of your typical Catholic official.

One further funny bit of news related to Lehman.  Tweedledee (ARD) and Tweedledum (ZDF), the two German public stations whose propoganda (in addition to some truly good programming) anyone in Germany with a TV is forced to support financially, ran completely contradictory titles on an interview Lehman gave today.  Tweedledee said that Lehman defended the pope, while Tweedledum claimed that Lehman criticized the pope.  I guess this is one way they can say they are covering all points of view

Posted by q on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:43 | #

What good does all this quibbling do about what’s presently happening now, when the Book of the Apocalypse spells out to us what’s definitely coming our way?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:47 | #

“you should check out an interview from last week’s Junge Freiheit with the head of the society in Germany.  It’s not in the archives yet, but I’ll post a link to it once it is.  It’s not the talk of your typical Catholic official.”  (—Dasein)

Thank you, Dasein.  I’d like very much to read it.  (You’re posting from Jewrmany?  Please don’t answer if you’d rather not — I understand.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:50 | #

What q is calling for a couple of comments above qualifies as nihilism and has no legitimacy whether in Christianity or otherwise.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:55 | #

Joe Public just doesn’t do numbers, especially on stuff that just doesn’t impinge - IN ANY WAY VISIBLE TO HIM - on his life (—Alex Zeka)

You might like to think Joe Public isn’t adding up 2 and 2, but I can assure you with great certainty, HE IS. (—the Narrator)

I think Joe isn’t stupid, but he doesn’t know what should be done about the problem. People seem to think there is a problem with the Zeitgeist, some kind of miasma in the air. Here is what Don Black was saying last month in an internet podcast (1-21-2009 minute 48) :

(my transcription - sorry for the mistakes)

We get a lot of people coming to Stormfront who understand there is a racial problem. They understand that we have an immigration problem that is turning this country into a third-world nation. They understand that white people are being discriminated against, in jobs, and promotions, and scholarships, and awarding of government contracts —pretty much everything across the board. I mean, they absolutely understand that. But they don’t understand just WHY this is happening. They think it just happens, you know, (...) somehow we lost control. And of course, the real reason for this is that we’ve been undermined by this very dedicated and cohesive racial-religious group of the Jews. Not all Jews are involved in this, we understand that. But the fact that Jews as a group have been acting very cohesively as a group to undermine our culture and our values, this is something that we all have to understand. [...]
[...] Now, what we have to understand is that… this IS the issue: the fact that Jews as a group have caused us to be in the situation we are in today. Now, I understand that many Jews know this and don’t agree with it. That’s fine, that’s great, we applaud them. But the fact that… —this is the undermining issue here, the fact that Jews, through their control of the news media, and ultimately, through their control of our political system, have brought this about, is a fact, something that we all ought to understand. But at the same time, we have groups that try to undermine this, we have these individuals who try to downplay this.

So, according to Don Black, contrary to what Alex Zeka thinks, people understand that what is going on is extremely serious. What they don’t understand is where the problem comes from. Personally, I have always been very much opposed to immigration, but until about one year ago, I didn’t realize that Jews played such a crucial role in it. Having been made aware of the problem, I now think that specifically denouncing Jewish double-standardism and anti-White activism should be a priority. I don’t think I have suddenly understood everything. I’m sure there are complex reasons for the current crisis. It isn’t only the Jews, and not all Jews are anti-White. But we don’t have to understand everything. We need a practical-minded approach. Although anti-Whitism is not 100% Jewish, Jewish extremism is a huge part of the problem, and we will get nowhere if we are afraid to confront it. What other action could be more efficient? Jewish organizations spend lots of time complaining about us and calling us racists and anti-Semites, even though no one is less racist than the white man. We shouldn’t be shy about rejecting those accusations and denouncing Jewish anti-Whitism. We also have to reject their dishonest double standards.

An obvious action we can take is to publically complain about the over-representation of Jews in the media. For two reasons: 1. It is proof that non-Jews looking for jobs in the media are discriminated against by Jews. I wish Laurence Auster and Michael Hart would explain why it is not all right to say so. 2. Jewish over-representation usually results in propaganda against the Whites and in favor of our racial replacement. The number of Jews in the media must be brought down to a level not higher than their percentage in the population (except in the case of Jewish media specifically made for the Jews with Jewish money. Conversely, non-Jews should be allowed to do non-Jewish programs without any Jewish interference). Many people will lie and deny that Jewish organizations are active in anti-Whitism. But they can not deny there is at least some antagonism between Jews and non-Jews, and this is enough to demand an end to Jewish over-representation in the media. A large part of the problem is Jewish ownership of the media. Jewish-owned media will hire white people to do anti-white propaganda. What can be done about that, I don’t know exactly.

Posted by q on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:00 | #

I’m not a nihilist, Fred. I define myself as a realist.

>>Before the the “Second Coming,” the ‘Great Tribulation’ must take place.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:23 | #

q, the nihilism part wasn’t your believing Scripture but your supposing that because of Scripture’s predictions we all might as well just lie down and do nothing.  That’s absolutely against Christianity and also against any decent philosophy.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:28 | #

What good does all this quibbling do about what’s presently happening now, when the Book of the Apocalypse spells out to us what’s definitely coming our way?  (—q)

Why do you ask what is the point of quibbling?
and why do you not ask yourself what is the point of posting here?
I mean: how do you decide what is pointless and what is not?

I’m not a nihilist, Fred. I define myself as a realist.

Personally, I am a social constructionist, and I have decided that you do not exist in the real world. You are only a figment of my imagination. (But Fred is not).

Posted by Armor on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:29 | #

not a very serious conversation!

Posted by q on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:02 | #

Fred and Armor are geniuses. But, q, is RIGHT!

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:00 | #

Sorry to hijack the thread here guys, but I have a question to address to everyone:

(Maybe you’ve heard it before, I dont know, its just striking me now as something important).

What can each of us individually do, practically (i.e. in real life) to advance the cause?

I really have no ideas.

It seems like “spreading awareness” is the best one can do. But if you dedicate
your life to this and do it in real life (i.e. non-anonymously) you forgoe any chances
of having a real career. If you advertise yourself as believing in the rights of whites
to self-determination and ethnic survival, you are ostracized.

I sense that society is changing, but how can one say “Fuck everyone else,
let them come to the realizations I’ve come to, as they eventually have to.”

The worse-is-better philosophy which has kept me non-active for so long now strikes
me as a kind of justified helplessness in the face of a stronger opponent.

I mean, the opposition is SO strong. It seems foolish even to speak up against them.
Both from a practical point of view, and considering that so many whites are not even
in a position to understand what is going on.

I just feel completely powerless and impotent to effect any change whatsoever.
Do we have to be completely surrounded and be in a hopeless death spiral before
people are willing to wake up and see whats going on?

What can I do?

Posted by Armor on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:20 | #

What Can I Do?
Advice for activists. —by Michael Walker
(I haven’t read that AmRen article yet, but the title is perfect! )

Apart from that, I like the website of European American United. (here and here)
I think they are trying to build something like a community, but you have to contact them.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:22 | #

justified helplessness

No such thing bro.

It seems foolish even to speak up against them.

It is but I’ll do it anyway because I’ve got a big fucking mouth.

Both from a practical point of view, and considering that so many whites are not even
in a position to understand what is going on.

They’re the techno-peasantry and one thing the peasantry has always been is conservative - as in, opposed to any radical change. They prefer to boil slowly and that is the way it has always been.

I just feel completely powerless and impotent to effect any change whatsoever.

Are you snorting coke again?

Do we have to be completely surrounded and be in a hopeless death spiral before
people are willing to wake up and see whats going on?

When they can’t pay their cable bills or afford their six packs, things will change.

What can I do?

Start working out and read Epictetus while you are on the treadmill. Grow a garden; watermelon, corn, peas, pumpkins, tomatoes the whole nine. Buy a dog and a snake. Masturbate excessively. Build a ham radio and a tazer with parts easily obtained from the local Radio Shack. Burn a hundred dollar bill.

Shoot yourself in the face like Tyler Durden.

Glad you’re back PF

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:32 | #

PF,

Welcome home.

It does not matter if the whole world is our enemy.  We have no choice but to cleave to our truths and to fight.  How can we fight?  First, by refining the basis for our worldview; second, by talking to our people through whatever medium presents itself; third, if political association is possible, as it is in Europe, we can contribute that way.

The first channel is what brings us together here and on sites like this one.  It is especially important to people interested in ideas.  We can converse together and bring into our presence new thinking from outside, we can extend our knowledge, we can perfect our language.

The second channel, for me, means commentary in other electronic media.  The Guardian is my chosen battlefield, even though I tend to get excluded rather regularly.  The latest exclusion was on this thread, albeit that I did get to tell Nick Griffin what I think of his strategy first.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/12/bnp-far-right-eu

At present the third channel of real-world campaigning is more difficult in some countries than others, obviously.  But Americans and Canadians who have few effective political and campaigning outlets can always help financially elsewhere, for example with Norman Lowell’s ongoing legal war in Malta.

What we can do, we must do.  Thinkers must think, writers write, film-makers make films ...  It may not seem enough, but we are the heirs of others for whom it must have seemed even more impossible to progress.  It is not impossible.  We are links in a chain.  You may never hear from or know the people you benefit.  But they will exist, and they in turn will benifit others.  Believe and work.

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:37 | #

hey danielj,

I remember you lol! good to see you too.

yeah, I mean… I see the self-help, survivalist, and partially tongue-in-cheek sense
in your reply.

it doesn’t alleviate my sense of panic though. it would be good to feel like I was doing
something for the cause besides just strengthening myself and family.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:39 | #

I see in his blog that the bishop also has unorthodox views about 9/11. Make of that what you will.

I’m not interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories myself, although I’d like to know more about what Mossad knew about the attack and the dancing, laughing, joking Jews who were filming themselves while the buildings were falling to the ground with their thousands of dead. However, I can see the bishop having questions about 9/11, once you realize that the Holocaust as presented is a hoax, you began to wonder about all sorts of things. Such as, for example, what else are our governments lying about? We saw the massive lies that were produced by our governments just recently, prior the invasion of Iraq. It’s rather normal to have a conspiratorial view of history, I believe.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:56 | #

A comment from the Guardian thread:

3. There is no such thing as genetically “English” or “British”. British “genes” will not be wiped out by immigration.

The fellow seems a little behind the curve [note the quotes around English, typical].

...an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy—often to within a few hundred kilometres.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/abs/nature07331.html

...and yes, English genes will indeed be wiped out by immigration because immigration entails racial proximity and racial proximity entails race-mixing. One had miscegenation in apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow South; therefore, you’ll have a lot more of that when the dominant culture does not prohibit or stigmatize it but celebrates racial bastardization as something hip and cool and progressive!

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:00 | #

Until we get a pro-White political party on the tracks we’re stuck in the train station.  A pro-White party that consistently garnered even ten percent of the vote would be cooking with gas - big time.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:14 | #

it doesn’t alleviate my sense of panic though. it would be good to feel like I was doing
something for the cause besides just strengthening myself and family.

Dan’s Musical Help for PF

Wanna teach me Latin or something?

What the hell do you think there is for you to do? I think computer hacking would present some opportunities.

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:24 | #

Guessedworker et al.,

I like your solution - arguing with people on moderate message boards and letting glimpses of truth fall around them.

Actually I became attracted to MR initially by following Svigor around the internet - he used to post suggestive comments on a number of moderate right-wing boards. I just followed Svigor to the source, and found MR.

Well it looks like short of calling my day-job quits and campaigning door-to-door, this is where its at.

GW, do you have any strategies or advice on how to best proselytize moderates and fence-sitters?

Danielj,

Is that your own music? Cool, I like the lyrics for the first song. I’ll have to give them a listen.
No, I cant teach anybody Latin.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:54 | #

No.

My band sucks. I’m learning how to play the drums so I joined a shitty band.

I’m gonna start a right wing version of that band though.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:08 | #

Feb. 10, 2009

An interview with the the author of the new book: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Prof. Dalton

http://www.amazon com/D.ebating- Holocaust- Look-Both- Sides/dp/ 1591480051/

Question: Hello Prof. Dalton. What brought you into studying the ‘Holocaust’ and ‘Holocaust Revisionism’ ?

Answer: I have had a long-standing interest in World War II, and was always curious about the unexplained aspects of the Holocaust. I was aware for many years of “deniers” who were questioning certain parts of the conventional story, but never bothered to really dig into the issues for myself. Then in 2006 we had the uproar over the Holocaust Conference in Teheran, and that rekindled my interest. I read books on both sides of the debate and realized, to my surprise, that the revisionists had a surprisingly strong case. But it was never presented in a form that the average reader could comprehend. Hence my reason for writing this book.

Question: It’s obvious to many that revisionism has been suffering the past few years, with turncoats, jailings, financial shortfalls, etc…Why did you choose to put out your new work *Debating the Holocaust* at this time?

Answer: There was no special reason for publishing now. I started serious research in 2006, and this was the soonest I could have a book ready for publication. Incidentally, revisionism is suffering because it relies on very few individuals, and they have been severely harassed or jailed in recent years. This, to me, indicates its success.

Question: Please briefly explain what the purpose of your book serves. (*I understand that this will likely be a short summation of the synopsis already given on the CODOH forum*).

Answer: The purpose of the book is to provide the first, and only, balanced look at the arguments and responses on both sides. I do not ally myself with either side, and I do not accept arguments from either side without first subjecting them to critical examination. Secondly, I hope to have provided all necessary basic facts on the Holocaust, to allow the reader to do further research on their own, and to be well-informed. Third, I have introduced a new method of looking at the death statistics, called a death matrix , that shows very clearly what is alleged (by either side) to have happened. Both sides are guilty of playing a bit of a shell game with the public, and the death matrix is a way to expose the whole picture to critical scrutiny.

Question: Why is your book different from all the other Theses & Dissertations publications?

Answer: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides is different because it examines the revisionist case from a neutral perspective, and because it discusses the strongest counterarguments that traditionalism has to offer. Also, it is the only book to encompass all of the central arguments in a concise form. Lastly, it is the newest TADP book, and hence has more current information than the other books, which are now 4 or more years old.

Question: What type of issues and specific arguments do you examine in your new study?

Answer: There are many issues and arguments addressed, but among the most important would be: (a) unreliability of witness accounts, (b) lack of factual justification for the 6 million figure, and its lengthy pre-war history, (c) the near-complete disappearance of critical death camps: Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, and Chelmno, (d) lack of material evidence of human remains (ashes, bones, teeth), or disturbed earth for mass graves, (e) functional difficulties with homicidal gassing, using either Zyklon or diesel engine exhaust, (f) wartime air photos that show little evidence of mass murder, and (g) the historical trends of Jewish population figures, and large number of present-day survivors.

Question: What have you personally learned from your experience in writing this book?

Answer: I cover this in the Epilogue, but briefly, I was quite surprised to see the strength of revisionist arguments, and the weakness of traditionalist replies. This is all the more striking given the small number of ill-equipped, poorly-funded revisionists, and the large number of well-financed orthodox writers. This, combined with the visceral and irrational response to revisionism, causes me to suspect that there truly are serious problems with the standard account.

Question: The world has just witnessed the force brought against a Catholic Bishop (Richard Williamson) who publicly challenged the official ‘Holocaust’ tale. Do you fear for your career and reputation with this new work?

Answer: Obviously there is some concern, but in principle, one should never fear the truth. There are always those in power who are corrupt, and who would resort to crude attempts to silence those who might shine a harsh light on this controversy. But we cannot let them run our (professional) lives. If we live in a nation where merely talking about this debate invites recrimination, then I think our system is intellectually and morally bankrupt and thus probably not worth keeping.

Question: Why do you believe so few academics are willing to challenge the established WWII story?

Answer: Many academics are Jewish/Zionist, and thus could never bring themselves to look at this debate objectively. The others are largely spineless, and will avoid any issue that threatens to bring the slightest inconvenience to themselves even something as slight as the disapproval of their Jewish colleagues. The other problem is that university administrators fear the wrath of Jewish or Zionist donors; any discussion of Holocaust revisionism will hit them in the pocketbook.

Follow-up questions are fine.

T.D.

—
DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton, PhD

Publisher’s Note: This is a non-Revisionist title for Theses & Dissertations Press. It will be the first book on the Holocaust, in publishing history, that will not take a Traditionalist or a Revisionist point of view. When you purchase this book, one-third of the proceeds will go to Germar Rudolf and his family.

http://www.amazon com/D.ebating- Holocaust- Look-Both- Sides/dp/ 1591480051/

Amazon.com: Debating the Holocaust: A New Look At Both Sides: Thomas Dalton, Ph.D, Michael Santomauro, David Barnett: Books
Amazon Amazon

Founded in 2000 the publishing company Theses & Dissertations Press is at the center of a worldwide network of scholars and activists who are working—often at great personal sacrifice—to separate historical fact from propaganda fiction. The founder of Theses & Dissertations Press is Germar Rudolf. Who is currently serving prison time for his published works and will be released on July 4, 2009.

As the new director of Germar Rudolf’s American publishing division, I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike any other historical event, is not subject to critical revisionist investigation. Furthermore I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic states have laws that criminalize public doubting of the Holocaust. It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislatures bodies and courthouses.

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@ Gmail.com

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:32 | #

No.

My band sucks. I’m learning how to play the drums so I joined a shitty band.

I’m gonna start a right wing version of that band though.

Go for it man. Skrewdriver inspired a lot of people, white interests can definitely
be conveyed beautifully through music.

Plus music is just a really fun hobby to be into.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:32 | #

Just to point out the obvious, we cannot even imagine the magnitude of the behind-the-scenes pressure the Jews are certainly exerting on the Vatican right now in an effort to force the rescinding of Bishop Williamson’s rehabilitation.  The Jews will be fighting this battle first of all by ordering up their goy troops — goys they own, control, intimidate, or easily lead, and also by leaning hard on governments they influence to get those governments to lean hard, in turn, on the Vatican.  The Jews right now, as we speak, are “calling in all debts.” This has to be something like World War IV for them.  They cannot let this bishop get away with his statements on the Holohoax.  Goy tribute payments to Jewry are riding on this:  if this bishop stays, it could ultimately jeopardize trillions of dollars in tribute money forked over to Jewry annually by subservient goy nations, corporations, banks, organizations, and individuals.  Last but not least the Jews will exert just unimaginable pressure directly, themselves, as undisguised Jews and this will include the government of Israel as well as every available Jewish big gun in the world.  All this is in addition to Jewry’s concentration of enormous pressure on Argentina, Jewrmany, and France to put Bishop Williamson on trial for “hate.” 

In view of all this, it certainly wouldn’t hurt matters if Christians, especially Catholics, contacted the Catholic authorities by mail, e-mail, or phone to demand that Bishop Williamson’s rehabilitation not be rescinded no matter who may be calling for that.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:52 | #

this has gone off-topic…

To re-state, numbers don’t matter SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THEM. If a 6m Holocaust will do (which is already a. lower than the Stalin death count and b. lower than the 20m figure claimed beforehand), so will a 1m one.

So, according to Don Black, contrary to what Alex Zeka thinks, people understand that what is going on is extremely serious. What they don’t understand is where the problem comes from. Personally, I have always been very much opposed to immigration, but until about one year ago, I didn’t realize that Jews played such a crucial role in it

If people understand that immigration is the problem, they can, gasp, vote for candiates who are against it. Or agitate against it. Or do SOMETHING against it - you can oppose something w/o knowing where it comes from. Don Black’s views aren’t supported by th evidence.

More precisely: Due to censorship, these feelings cannot be expressed in the public sphere. It doesn’t mean that people are stupid and can’t see. What will it take for you to admit that most people are deeply opposed to race-replacement? a civil war, I suppose.

Them making some sort of noise or ANYTHING against it. If you think you’re being annihilated you don’t pussyfoot around. That should be obvious. The people do pussyfoot, ergo they don’t realise. Q.E.D.

Fred’s speculations are, once again, too weird to reply to. I’ll reply to everyhing else in the morning.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:57 | #

So I conclude that whilst you are right that there is no direct engagement of HR to our children’s sense of peoplehood and self-worth, populism is not the issue here.  Power is the issue, and all we have to fight power is truth and justice.

Which seems to me to suggest that the power issue needs dealing with first, before the HR issue can be dealt with. In other words, HR can only get a fair hearing *after* WN has triumphed in several substantive respects.

Re: the rest. I would like to blog again. Could you send me the link to my account again? I’ve lost it while changing computers.

Btw, von huff is annoying and pointless; Richardson, etc. are a huge loss to MR.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:25 | #

“Fred’s speculations are, once again, too weird to reply to. I’ll reply to everyhing else”  (—Alex Zeka)

Well don’t reply to my speculations, but could you just say which ones they are without replying?  I’ve already conceded the argument to you and dropped out, so I thought you and I were done with one another.  Have I made weird speculations since then?

If you’ve evolved into a wet, Alex — or if you’ve always been one — then yes, you’ll find my stuff too weird to reply to and I’ll find yours ... well, wet.

You were a student when you blogged here before.  What are you studying, or if you’re done, what did you get your diploma in?

Would you say there is a problem today of coercive government-enforced race-replacemenet of white populations?  Or is there no such problem? 

You add that Mark Richardson’s departure was “a huge loss to MR.com.”  Exactly what made him drop out, do you think?  Please name names, if applicable.

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:35 | #

I fervently agree with alex zeka, that HR is (to quote Kevin MacDonald) a “non-starter”.

It will not get us anywhere, with any demographic. Even discussing it directly engages
the most successfully embedded Pavlovian trigger which the media has created:
Jews/Hitler/Holocaust.

Fixation on this point would be fine for a group of people who were content to remain
an obscure historical debate society, not for anyone who wanted to engender any type
of following.

I wish the pro-Hitler posters on this board would, rather than continuing to laud the political
order he established, take a page from his own genius, which was crafting an ideology
which had mass appeal and the possibility of winning people over.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:38 | #

alex zeka: “To re-state, numbers don’t matter SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THEM. If a 6m Holocaust will do (which is already a. lower than the Stalin death count and b. lower than the 20m figure claimed beforehand), so will a 1m one.”

If numbers don’t matter then why all the hysteria whenever the Holy Six Million is questioned?

“If people understand that immigration is the problem, they can, gasp, vote for candiates who are against it. Or agitate against it. Or do SOMETHING against it - you can oppose something w/o knowing where it comes from. Don Black’s views aren’t supported by th evidence.”

The message that the BNP delivers is more radical than ‘just opposing immigration’.  You know, like opposing miscegenation and favoring repatriation?  Should they tone down their message still more?

“Them making some sort of noise or ANYTHING against it. If you think you’re being annihilated you don’t pussyfoot around. That should be obvious. The people do pussyfoot, ergo they don’t realise. Q.E.D.”

The people I know who have nascent racial consciousness have literally been beaten and raped by Negroes. 

“Fred’s speculations are, once again, too weird to reply to. I’ll reply to everyhing else in the morning.”

Fred is, essentially, miffed that your passion for the survival of our race doesn’t burn as hot as his, from what I’ve seen, he’s right.  No need to take offence, btw.

“Which seems to me to suggest that the power issue needs dealing with first, before the HR issue can be dealt with. In other words, HR can only get a fair hearing *after* WN has triumphed in several substantive respects.”

Revisionism is practically useful to rile up the Jews.  Why do we want the Jews riled up?  Because the more they lash out the more likely a blowback is.  Isn’t that the lesson history teaches?

“Re: the rest. I would like to blog again. Could you send me the link to my account again? I’ve lost it while changing computers.”

If you want to blog, then do it.

“Btw, von huff is annoying and pointless; Richardson, etc. are a huge loss to MR.”

Hasselhoffmeister is a buffoon.  Why get excited about him?  Besides, shouldn’t his anti-Nazi shtick win some points with the lemmings?  At least maybe by your lights?

I think the psychotic Diamed was a far worse threat to the credibility of this site.  I mean, his first series of comments here literally were nearly main post length paeans to the necessity of exterminating ALL non-Whites GLOBALLY.  At least Diamed had the good taste to fuck off, I’ll give him that.

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:46 | #

The people I know who have nascent racial consciousness have literally been beaten and raped by Negroes

Is it your experience that people have to be physically assaulted before they become racially conscious?

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:04 | #

ex-PF: “Is it your experience that people have to be physically assaulted before they become racially conscious?”

The people that I’ve met who have the beginning of a hardened us/them world view have suffered at the hands of non-Whites.  What gets regular folk upset over the Hispanic invasion is the destruction of their neighborhoods and the loss of jobs and undercutting of wages - suffering.  If coming together as a people for the mitigation of personal suffering proves insufficient to mobilize our people, then we might as well stick a fork in it right now; in my opinion. 

I believe we will come together as a people.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:18 | #

“I fervently agree with alex zeka, that HR is (to quote Kevin MacDonald) a ‘non-starter.’ “  (—PF)

Its coming up in the threads here wasn’t part of some blog “outreach strategy.”  It merely came up.

“Even discussing it directly engages [...]”

So all discussion of it should be avoided?  If someone makes that rule, it’s fine with me.

“Fixation on this point [...]”

It happened to come up.  No one is “fixated” on it.  If GW decides it should never be discussed, or not discussed to any extent, I’ll abide by that.  My sole reason for being here is race-replacement.  The HollowCo$t, though indirectly related to my main concern, is not my main concern.

My sense is Alex Zeka was annoyed at the HollowHoax discussion that was taking place but he didn’t know quite how to say that, so he beat around the bush.  I don’t think turning this blog into Mencius Moldbug or Harry’s Place is going to do it any good though.

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:22 | #

CaptainChaos,

Do you perceive a shift in perception amongst Americans now as compared to 10 years ago?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:38 | #

My sense also is that Alex Zeka will turn out to be a wet, and this blog will turn out to be “too racist” and “too anti-Semitic” for his nerves. 

In principle I’m on Alex’s side.  If race-replacement can be halted and reversed while excluding all “racism” and all accusations of Jewish group-culpability I’m for it. 

One thing you’ll never be free of, however, and mark this well and never forget it, is Jewish accusations of your own anti-Semitism, which no matter what you do or say, are built into the fabric of the universe as profoundly and inevitably as the laws of thermodynamics.  Nothing in this universe we inhabit can ever alter your own status as a vicious, potentially dangerous congenital anti-Semite.

Posted by expf on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:47 | #

Fred,

what does the term “wet” signify?

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:59 | #

ex-PF: “Do you perceive a shift in perception amongst Americans now as compared to 10 years ago?”

I see the zeitgeist beginning to turn towards racial consciousness.  You never would have seen anything like the Minute Men or the Ron Paul Revolution ten years back.  The lemmings are still afraid to admit to themselves that they are ‘racists’.  It’s getting them to shift from implicit Whiteness to explicit Whiteness that is the thing.  Look at the republican party with Michael Steele, they now have to kneel before the new ‘diversity mandate’.  They are heaping up the funeral pyre of the Republican party.  These guys have no choice but to forge ahead in the anti-racist mode, if they turn back now, they will lose everything.  Let them keep turning the screws, there will be a backlash.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:05 | #

The wets are what in common parlance would be called the “liberals” of the party.

Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:10 | #

ex-P.F.

Kevin MacDonald recently wrote an article in which he stated this:

“This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it’s the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it’s the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.”

My suggestions:

While the above paragraphs are inspirational, I suggest that unless you have a very secure job (or are financially stable), you do NOT bring up politics in the workplace.  Second, tell your family about your beliefs and work on building a familial consensus (and sharpening your communication skills).  Then tell your friends.  Explain that you are a white male with legitimate interests.  It is not in the interest of a sane white person to support x, y, or z.  Unless your friends are crazy or irrational, they’ll agree with you on at least some of your points.  Always cloak your language in positive terms of self or group interest.  If you talk about racial minorities state the facts only.  If someone calls you a racist, treat the word “racist” like blacks treat the word “nigger”.  Reject it outright as slanderous and insulting.  Before long someone will run for office as an implicit white racialist; later as an explicit white racialist.  Of course, this is in an ideal world that isn’t facing imminent economic collapse; realistically, however, it’s the only way we’re going to build momentum - and the more pieces that are in place as the economy collapses, the faster we’ll be able to completely topple the existing political/psychological order.  I have been using the above methodology for over a year now, and it works.

Posted by mnuez on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:34 | #

Hey guys, there’s a Jew-fest going on at the bottom of “Progress by Pesach”, you might want to chime in. Goddamn Jews, always looking for attention and advertising themselves. I HATE dem sons of bitches!

Posted by ex-PF on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:43 | #

CaptainChaos,

I appreciate your reading of the social barometer. Its good to get another perspective, since I can never tell how much my own “reading” is corrupted by my tendency to screen for likeminded people and natural gravitation towards traditional milieus. I also sense that things are a-changing, but then look on the internet: someone posts a question to AskMe about their sister dating a black, and you have 10 anti-racist replies before the topic is deleted. It makes me feel like all is for naught. From the way the 15 year olds talk, we may as well be living in Multicultural paradise.

I’m also scared for England that ‘the backlash’ might not come. I’m afraid when I read descriptions of England. How many self-satisfied people (my overly polite yet right-hearted father among them) have said: “There will be a backlash.” What does that mean, lie down like a sheep until your neighbor is ready to roll with you? How is my passivity different from his, other than that it is an infomed passivity?

I’m not sure my conscience will let me wait for others to awaken anymore. With everything I read I feel more and more that if I just stand by - even with a full theoretical knowledge and right opinions - its no better than the sheep who let it happen to them. What I’m saying is that I may have to give up my career plans and somehow participate in immigration-reform politics directly.

I’m not sure, in light of whats happening, that anyone with his heart in the right place can stand by and work a regular job and be an average joe.

But these are just some cogitations.

Cladrastis,

thank you for taking the time to type that out. It also seems like the sane path that would let me pursue gainful employment and start a family.

I will have to weight these options going forward and decide which is the best way to be.

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:03 | #

Revisionism is practically useful to rile up the Jews.  Why do we want the Jews riled up?  Because the more they lash out the more likely a blowback is.  Isn’t that the lesson history teaches?

An excellent point, CC.

Is it your experience that people have to be physically assaulted before they become racially conscious?

This was my experience.  It wasn’t anything particularly terrible, but that event was what set me on the path.

Fred, yes I am back and forth between the Anglosphere and Germany.  In some ways the situation in Germany wrt racial consciousness is better than in the Anglosphere.  Peoples’ antennae for detecting ‘racist’ remarks seem less sensitive than in the Anglosphere (although perhaps I should exclude Australia because the people I know from there are not prudish on racial matters).  You don’t hear the ‘that sounds raaaacist’ admonishment that comes so quickly and gleefully from Anglos.  I have often heard women talk disdainfully of the ‘African mentality’.  Not that there aren’t a lot of miscegenators, but observations of racial differences are not so taboo in general discourse.  It’s probably to do with the fact that things are fairly segregated socially with regards to race.  That is my experience, at least.  The big issue is the Nazi past.  It seems many are resigned to the demographic collapse as justified punishment for the war.

I agree with CC that the worm has turned with regards to White racial consciousness.  The big difference now is the intellectual foundation which has been built up, which the Internet allows to be popularized.  The fact that some Jews and Judeophiles are now saying many of the same things is probably the best sign that the movement is about to bear fruit.  It’s possible that these outsiders will deform it, but I think there is an acknowledgement among the elites that this is something that can only be held back for so long.  At the moment they are perhaps strategizing about the best way to take advantage of it and to direct it, while their lackeys in the media and academia try to maintain the status quo.  We’ll probably see more Obama-type stories, but I think the high-water mark has been reached.  The liberal project is falling apart, as must anything that violates natural law.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:46 | #

Dasein,

I did reply by email - not incredibly helpfully - to your earlier request concerning Richard Williamson and his reading of the Pressac book.  Would you please check it?

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:50 | #

The latest from the good Bishop:

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-godless.html

As the deadline approaches, he still gives no sign of repenting.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:51 | #

PF,

My last post about strategies for taking the argument out into the digital world was here.

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:54 | #

Thanks a lot GW, just saw it now.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:27 | #

“The [Catholic] Church of 1964, as here portrayed to the life, was doomed.”  (—Bishop Richard Williamson)

( http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-godless.html )

How true that is a mere glance at today’s world both Catholic and otherwise will promptly confirm.  The Vatican must know things have gone terribly wrong but probably doesn’t know how to let go of the tiger’s tail they took hold of in the 1960s. 

They’d better start figuring out a way, and fast.  (Hint for the Vatican:  the answer does NOT involve any more listening to the Jews.  You’ve listened to them quite enough already, thank you.)

Posted by Tc on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:23 | #

In my personal experience, one very useful side effect of disabusing someone of his/her hollocaustic views is, that they are truly and irrevocably woken up to the correctness of a ‘conspiratorial’ worldview - and as such, gain a chance of saving themselves from the slaughterhouse/fleecing awaiting the herd.

What seems to work for me(of course after emotional sessions with family members) is when I simply ask, what if, just theoretically, what if - the HR-s were right, what would that mean about the state of our media, political, social and educational institutions? And if there there can be any extrapolations made - how would they intersect with our ostensible day-to-day reality. And that’s when the breakthroughs have happened - when the opponents were using their own brain in coming up with parallel syndromes, it wasn’t me feeding them my reality. Of course it wouldn’t work with anyone, who KNOWS the score. I suspect Alex is such a person.

This holokostianity is an incredible, unbelievable, unimaginable lie for our honest folk the wrap their mind around. It and it’s effects dwarf anything else in the known history of mankind. And since the evidence is on our side, it is well worth pursuing.

I’m an agnostic, yet would join this Bishop’s ministry in a heartbeat. The force is strong with him.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:54 | #

“I’m an agnostic, yet would join this Bishop’s ministry in a heartbeat.  The force is strong with him.”  (—Tc)

I like the way you put that, TC.  Well said.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:22 | #

Laughland has got the makings of a very good essay describing the effects of the disease we see all around us,

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3804 ,

but strangely fails by never once mentioning the word “Jews” in connection with the post-war West’s insane deterioration, or “race” in connection with his discussion of “nation.”

Pundits like this are either blind, scared, or under strict orders.

Posted by Scrooby fan on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:43 | #

Fred’s speculations are, once again, too weird to reply to.

Actually, for this Scrooby-fan not, his speculations on this thread have been most reasonable.  Not often I can say that.

As far as activism goes, HR cuts right to the heart of free speech.  It’s simply unconscionable that people are being prosecuted for expressing skepticism about aspects of a historical event.  Today HR, tomorrow what else will you be locked up for questioning?  What are these people so afraid of that they have to lock up skeptical views?

It isn’t difficult to make HR relevant to present issues.  Can’t discuss immigration because next thing you know Holocaust; can’t discuss racial differences because next thing you know Holocaust; can’t discuss IQ and school/job performance because next thing you know Holocaust; can’t discuss the Israel Lobby because next thing you know Holocaust.  Holocaust steamrolls all.  And now it’s obvious why nothing must be allowed to chip even a bit of that pristine image away, why Holocaust skeptics are thrown in jail.  Muzzling Holocaust skeptics won’t make another Holocaust less likely; in reality, it makes one more likely.

In any case, I don’t care what people think they know; I care about what is true.  It’s always to one’s advantage to be proven wrong than to go on believing untruths.  Personally, I became acquainted with HR reading Irving’s libel trial.  The man might have his facts mixed up, I thought, but he is no idiot. I was then prepared for the whole Holocaust thing to be false before I read a word of direct HR.  It took about a week’s worth of daily reading to move me from leaning towards H (despite being skeptical) to HR (despite still being skeptical). 

mnuez,

Hey guys, there’s a Jew-fest going on at the bottom of “Progress by Pesach”, you might want to chime in. Goddamn Jews, always looking for attention and advertising themselves. I HATE dem sons of bitches!

This unaccountable smugness of yours is what many resent in Jews.  Despite any quite real concerns you may have, how can you be so selfish as to deny the importance of what is being discussed here?  Future generations, mnuez.  Not your comparatively worthless life, not mine, the future.  How can you continue to tapdance, to evade, to gloat?  Selfish in the extreme.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:12 | #

Until we get a pro-White political party on the tracks we’re stuck in the train station.  A pro-White party that consistently garnered even ten percent of the vote would be cooking with gas - big time.

If we had that, we’d be disembarking.  The goal is to get to that point.  Once populist ethno-nationalism becomes a household word phenomenon, it’ll be too big to stop.  It’s like saying we’ll go nowhere until we get a WN television station; if we had that, we’d already have won.

If we get a million motivated, 100+ IQ white males we win.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:20 | #

Who is Scrooby Fan?

Silver?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:25 | #

Daniel, yes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:26 | #

He’s also been signing as “Bah” over at Proze’s lately.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:33 | #

Didnt realise it was Silver. Should have clocked that when he referred to JWH as Rienzi on another thread, one of his signature ticks!

Silver, really what do you get out of all this, is it a cry for help, for attention?

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:19 | #

Laughland has got the makings of a very good essay describing the effects of the disease we see all around us,

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3804 ,

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 17, 2009, 05:22 PM

He makes a couple of false assumptions though, one of which he shares with Bishop Williamson and the Kinists. Namely, that Europe was built and sustained by Christianity rather than genetics.
It’s also odd that he seems to lament the drop in the faithful yet reminds us that it was Christian schisms that prevented Europe from coalescing against islam in the first place.

He also makes the misguided connection of increasing numbers of muslims in Europe with Europe’s declining population.

The two are unnecessarily connected.

Europe (like the rest of the world) is waaaaaaaaaaay overpopulated and desperately needs a reduction in numbers. Europeans, on their own, were doing just that. It was governments and greedy corporations who decided to fill the gaps on the assembly lines with foreigners to keep profits up without adjusting technology and economies to natural demographic movements.
Thank god European leaders didn’t follow this line of thinking in the middle ages and bring in 40 million Africans to replace those lost to the Black Death!

We have to stop immigration. And to do that we have to expose those who are pushing for it as the blood sucking vampires that they are.

And, not to nitpick, but it would probably be a good idea for those advocating a Northern Alliance to stop phrasing it as “Europe and Russia” as though Russia were something other than European.

...

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:31 | #

ex-PF has posted this on another thread but it’s worth repeating here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2XQY1wFxg

It’s an excellent illustration of the point CC was making earlier.

To the extent that HR is a ‘conspiracy theory’, it must be remembered that Negroes are especially prone to believing any theory that makes white people (to them this includes Jews) look evil.  Baboons like the one in this video are good news.  Now we just need to find a way to get him back to his native habitat.

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:21 | #

Europe (like the rest of the world) is waaaaaaaaaaay overpopulated and desperately needs a reduction in numbers. Europeans, on their own, were doing just that. It was governments and greedy corporations who decided to fill the gaps on the assembly lines with foreigners to keep profits up without adjusting technology and economies to natural demographic movements.

The first Gastarbeiters were brought to Germany before the demographic shift.  The gaps were real even when the birth rate was at a level unimaginable today (although I’m not sure if you are saying that the drop in the birth rate was what precipitated the ‘need’ to import non-Europeans).  Whether these gaps were due to the war (maybe this is what you meant by Europeans doing it on their own, although I think we both disagree with the methodology!) or to an economy that was truly running at 200%, I’m not sure.  The grave error has been the failure to not send them back, compounded by the decision to import even more.  You’re right- the economy needs to be tailored to demographics, not the other way around.

While Europeans have decided to depopulate, ‘dealing with overpopulation’ is a superficial rationalization on their part (I personally don’t find Europe- at least Germany- to be overpopulated and I’m not sure what measures are used to say she is).  The real reasons, as far as I can tell, are that kids interfere with women’s job prospects and the freedom to go to Mallorca twice a year.  It’s hedonism and misdirected attempts at fulfillment (I was impressed with Yockey’s comment, coming from as far back as 1948, that ‘[f]eminism liberated women from the natural dignity of their sex and turned them into inferior men’- never a truer word said), not any sort of foresight.  The trend is dysgenic and any attempts to repopulate are going to require some government support for the right trends (the recent scheme by the government to provide generous wage subsidies to either parent who stays home with the child may bear fruit, although the results at the moment are not that impressive).

I understand why people are so down on the Church.  MacDonald does suggest though in SAID that in the Middle Ages the Church was often the only organization that represented the interests of the majority people (e.g. against Jewish usury).  Perhaps if the traditional Nordic religion had never been lost, we would not be in the state we’re in today.  Don’t know how I would decide on that one.  I think the rise of science made loss of faith inevitable, replacement of faith in Christianity with humanism being a necessary condition for the modern age .  Could Islam have stopped the rise of science?  Perhaps, though I think the Promethean spirit of the Europeans would have eventually won the day.

Thank god European leaders didn’t follow this line of thinking in the middle ages and bring in 40 million Africans to replace those lost to the Black Death!

Yes, but they did bring in the Jews.

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:15 | #

Mr. Braun- thank you.

[”...an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy—often to within a few hundred kilometres. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/abs/nature07331.html
...and yes, English genes will indeed be wiped out by immigration because immigration entails racial proximity and racial proximity entails race-mixing. One had miscegenation in apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow South; therefore, you’ll have a lot more of that when the dominant culture does not prohibit or stigmatize it but celebrates racial bastardization as something hip and cool and progressive!]

I’ve put it to good use. http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/muzzling-science-while-doing-lattice-multiplication/

Cladrastis noted:”“This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.”

You mean like an email I received entitled, “Who’s the H8’er now?

<<<<begin post>>>>

“The speech professor is identified as John Matteson of Los Angeles Community College. ADF reports that after Proposition 8 (the marriage-related constitutional amendment) was approved on November 4, Matteson told his entire class: “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist b_____d.”

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=422144

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-speech16-2009feb16,0,2571899.story

THIS is the sort of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ THEY are trying to (graphic pun intended to prove a point!) ‘shove down our throats,’ in the wake of the sodomite’s irrational reaction to the voters of California’s passage of Proposition 8. How much clearer does the antichrist agenda need to be?

Who’s the REAL ‘hater’ in all this? Clearly, not Christians. We are COMMANDED to hate sin and evil!
“Do I not hate them, O LORD, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with them that rise up against Thee? I hate Thy Enemies, O LORD, with a Perfect* Hatred-I count them my enemies” - Psalm 139: 21-22. Contrast this O.T. verse with our Lord’s words,  in Matt. 5:17-18, and then realize the moral law of the O.T. is still in force. Do not let the antinomian liars and cowards dissuade you from this one point. GOD HATES SIN. End of story.

Read the above articles, read the words of Sacred Scripture,  then stop and think. WOULD ANY GAY ACTIVIST sit still, if the tables were reversed? OF COURSE THEY WOULDN’T!!!

We can do no less, in serving Christ, than to call for this man’s termination!

He’s listed on the faculty at L.A. Community College
Here’s his department Chair info:
Jeanne Dunphy, Department Chair, (323)953-4000 ext. 2967 CC 187 .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Here’s HIS info.
John Matteson, Co-Director of Forensics (323) 953-4000 ext. 2966 CC 189 .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Here is the contact info for the College district:
http://www.laccd.edu/
The ‘Discrimination Statement’ for the district
- http://www.laccd.edu/diversity/discrimination.htm
(Clearly, he is in VIOLATION of this ‘statement’, but that is not ENOUGH!)

Here is the Chancellor’s Office contact info for all nine colleges. Call HIM first!
District Office
Chancellor: Dr. Marshall E. Drummond
770 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 891-2000

Remember, OBAMA is pledged to make this sort of bigotry INSTITUTIONALIZED. He OWES his political life to the sodomite community and the liberals.

“All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing…”
<<<end post>>>

All I can say in addition, is ‘go thou, and do likewise.’

This IS a racial, and religious war, folks. The sooner we know that, and determine which side we are on, the better.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:14 | #

The first Gastarbeiters were brought to Germany before the demographic shift.  The gaps were real even when the birth rate was at a level unimaginable today (although I’m not sure if you are saying that the drop in the birth rate was what precipitated the ‘need’ to import non-Europeans).

Posted by Dasein on February 18, 2009, 12:21 PM

Well maybe my info is wrong but from what I’d read Europe’s population has grown by about 250 million since the end of WWII. That’s a helluva spike!

Europe’s population seemed to be leveling itself out (for whatever specific reason) naturally. If it was due to materialism then it was a positive outgrowth of materialism.

The importation of foreigners shouldn’t be connected with indigenous population numbers in relation to economies/jobs. Corporations like to make that connection but we shouldn’t let them…

I personally don’t find Europe- at least Germany- to be overpopulated and I’m not sure what measures are used to say she is

Posted by Dasein on February 18, 2009, 12:21 PM

82 million people in a country smaller than Montana!
In an ideal world I’d think about 12 million would be a good number. Ditto for Britain and France.

The trend is dysgenic and any attempts to repopulate are going to require some government support for the right trends (the recent scheme by the government to provide generous wage subsidies to either parent who stays home with the child may bear fruit, although the results at the moment are not that impressive).

Posted by Dasein on February 18, 2009, 12:21 PM

Our number (in our lands) aren’t as important as their numbers in our lands are. They have to be removed one way or another.

I’m not exactly sure what the percentages are over there though as it’s hard to find solid sources.
How many non-Whites are there in Germany?

As best I can gather Germany is around 8% non-White. The Netherlands is around 20% non-White. Britain seems to be about 12% non-White. France and Belgium….who knows.

“Thank god European leaders didn’t follow this line of thinking in the middle ages and bring in 40 million Africans to replace those lost to the Black Death!”

Yes, but they did bring in the Jews.

Posted by Dasein on February 18, 2009, 12:21 PM

I’m pretty sure they were there long before the Black Death hit.

...

Posted by Armor on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:32 | #

It was governments and greedy corporations who decided to fill the gaps on the assembly lines with foreigners to keep profits up without adjusting technology and economies to natural demographic movements. (—the Narrator…)

I think that kind of explanation doesn’t make sense. Immigration destroys both our lives and our wallets. It would have been much cheaper for us to bribe both governments and corporations into forbidding any employment of third-world immigrants. How come it couldn’t be done? How come it can’t be done even today? Maybe we should just try to raise money and buy politicians at a higher price than their usual rate. If there is an economist around, please explain why I’m wrong.

The grave error has been the failure to not send them back, compounded by the decision to import even more. (—Dasein)

...and more, and more. I wonder when it ceased to be a grave error and became a deliberate race-replacement policy. From the start, there must have been common sense people who took objection to immigration but they were overridden by an alliance of white fools and anti-white rogues. Today’s problem is no longer foolishness, but dishonesty and a lack of courage.

You’re right- the economy needs to be tailored to demographics, not the other way around.

Sometimes, employers ‘need’ more workers, sometimes they need fewer workers. Or from the workers’ perspective: sometimes we need more work, sometimes… —in fact, workers rarely complain there are too many jobs around to choose from. The obvious truth is that society is more comfortable overall when there is a shortage of workers, and wages are high, even if some employers complain that they are not making as much money as they could. Labor shortage is a good thing for society, even if it curbs economic growth. In the future, the shortage will be in European spirit. That can only be fixed through repatriation of non-Europeans.

I personally don’t find Europe- at least Germany- to be overpopulated

A hundred years ago, we had more space because not so many of us lived in cities. That has been made worse by immigration. Provided you can find a job, it is easier to have children in a small town than in a big city. In France, I think the government has been encouraging the desertification of the countryside and is still doing so today. Their ideal is that each big city should be a cosmopolitan place with no connection to its region and history.

kids interfere with women’s job prospects and the freedom to go to Mallorca twice a year.

There are many reasons why people have fewer children. One of them, I think, is that people have become more isolated. Without a job, a stay at home mother may feel she doesn’t have enough of a social life.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:45 | #

It was governments and greedy corporations who decided to fill the gaps on the assembly lines with foreigners to keep profits up without adjusting technology and economies to natural demographic movements. (—the Narrator…)

I think that kind of explanation doesn’t make sense. Immigration destroys both our lives and our wallets.

Posted by Armor on February 18, 2009, 08:32 PM

Yes it destroys our lives and wallets but it enriches multinational corporations…

.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:07 | #

He makes a couple of false assumptions though, one of which he shares with Bishop Williamson and the Kinists. Namely, that Europe was built and sustained by Christianity rather than genetics.

I think you oversimplify here. The argument is that European genes are best exploited and Europeans realize their full potential when the Christian religion is dominant over politics, science, home and hearth.

They also make the argument that healthy Christianity would be a much stronger bulwark against neo-liberal rationalist technocracy than any stripe of atheistic, racialist materialism.

Additionally, every country is built by the genetics of its respective inhabitants, but not only by their genes. Nations are the blood of a people corporealized and acting within their specific environmental milieu. This environment is partially imposed by nature and partially created by nurture and includes the metaphysics of a people, their epistemology and their teleology.

Europe (like the rest of the world) is waaaaaaaaaaay overpopulated and desperately needs a reduction in numbers.

That is entirely subjective at this point and a problem reserved only for aestheticians at this point. Also, as James consistently points out, the next carrying capacity miracle could be just around the corner waiting to cause another population explosion.

MacDonald does suggest though in SAID that in the Middle Ages the Church was often the only organization that represented the interests of the majority people (e.g. against Jewish usury).

This is true although the Church didn’t always do the best job of it.

The obvious truth is that society is more comfortable overall when there is a shortage of workers, and wages are high, even if some employers complain that they are not making as much money as they could.

Yeah. How come (this question is for you libertarians out there) employers never have to submit to market discipline? That is, why doesn’t a labor shortage simply mean that wages are too low?

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:57 | #

I think you oversimplify here. The argument is that European genes are best exploited and Europeans realize their full potential when the Christian religion is dominant over politics, science, home and hearth.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 12:07 AM

I know what the argument is but it’s a bad argument. Christianity is far too watery a quality to define in a way strong enough to say who has it and who doesn’t, what it is and what it isn’t. After all the majority of Americans are Christians. http://christianpost.com/Society/Polls_reports/2009/01/most-americans-pick-and-choose-religious-beliefs-12/index.html

They also make the argument that healthy Christianity would be a much stronger bulwark against neo-liberal rationalist technocracy than any stripe of atheistic, racialist materialism.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 12:07 AM

The only problem with that assertion is that neo-liberalism (and all of its ideological offspring) came to fruition within “Christendom”, not without.
In fact the majority of Western men still believe there is a god or “higher authority” beyond the material world, so we’ll probably never know (in our lifetimes) what atheistic materialism would have, or could have, done for The West.

Additionally, every country is built by the genetics of its respective inhabitants, but not only by their genes. Nations are the blood of a people corporealized and acting within their specific environmental milieu. This environment is partially imposed by nature and partially created by nurture and includes the metaphysics of a people, their epistemology and their teleology.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 12:07 AM

Nation-states are fairly modern. There have been too many overlapping realms, kingdoms, empires, duchies, etc… over the centuries. I would think a better word to use in place of country would be civilization and specify to the regions within it.
Protestantism, for example, is a natural worldview for Northern/Germanic peoples. In fact reading through Tacitus you could easily say that the Germanic peoples were Protestant Pagans who later became Protestant Christians. 
In other words people form and inform Christianity, not the other way around.

That is entirely subjective at this point and a problem reserved only for aestheticians at this point.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 12:07 AM

More people = more conflict. Always has, always will.

MacDonald does suggest though in SAID that in the Middle Ages the Church was often the only organization that represented the interests of the majority people (e.g. against Jewish usury).

Posted by Dasein on February 18, 2009, 12:21 PM

I’m pretty sure Kmac was referring to the political organization known as the Catholic Church, not the religion it espoused.

Of course today Christianity is looking after the interests of the majority (the third world) at the expense of The West.
That in and of itself is enough to eternally condemn it.

Yeah. How come (this question is for you libertarians out there) employers never have to submit to market discipline? That is, why doesn’t a labor shortage simply mean that wages are too low?

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 12:07 AM

Beyond that, not having enough workers is like not having enough customers. If you truly lack either then you’ll just have to go under and close shop like everyone else.
No such thing as a right to succeed….

...

Posted by danielj on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:41 | #

I know what the argument is but it’s a bad argument. Christianity is far too watery a quality to define in a way strong enough to say who has it and who doesn’t, what it is and what it isn’t. After all the majority of Americans are Christians.

I agree that a majority of people make the claim that they are Christians and but I disagree about how hard it is to define. Historically, it was Catholics and it was continental, Scottish and English versions of Calvinistic, Reformed Protestants that considered themselves, and were, Christians proper and it is the same today. However, you haven’t disputed the premises of the argument or its conclusion and instead are squabbling over a definition.

The only problem with that assertion is that neo-liberalism (and all of its ideological offspring) came to fruition within “Christendom”, not without. In fact the majority of Western men still believe there is a god or “higher authority” beyond the material world, so we’ll probably never know (in our lifetimes) what atheistic materialism would have, or could have, done for The West.

It did not. As Christianity slowly died, liberalism sprung up as God in His place because God is an inescapable concept. The majority of men believe in some ill defined cosmic grandfather who looks down with benevolence from his starry rocking chair but they do not believe in the Christian God of yore. Our leaders, the media, the schools and the professorial class are already living and espousing an atheistic materialist worldview so we will (at least I will, being only 25) see the fruit of this philosophy in our lifetime.

Protestantism, for example, is a natural worldview for Northern/Germanic peoples. In fact reading through Tacitus you could easily say that the Germanic peoples were Protestant Pagans who later became Protestant Christians. In other words people form and inform Christianity, not the other way around.

I essentially agreed with this, but I will again if you like.  Protestantism was also a worldview of Huguenots and, if we are technical, the Eastern Orthodox are a form of Protestant as well. Africans, Chinese, Japanese and Koreans do not practice the same Protestantism as Whites. The Koreans, unlike the Africans, even have churches with proper Reformed doctrine but still have a different flavor than a “Dutch” style church. God has no problem with diversity of practice.

More people = more conflict. Always has, always will.

It is just a mathematical proportion so although there is more conflict over all, it really doesn’t concern me. The only limitation is our ability to exploit the Earth.

I’m pretty sure Kmac was referring to the political organization known as the Catholic Church, not the religion it espoused.

Yes, but what did they gain from standing up to the dukes for the peasants? It wasn’t exactly self-interest that motivated them. There was very little emancipation of serfs that wasn’t forced by philosophy, religion and government. I think what little voluntary emancipation that was done, was done in England. The Church stood up for the poor, although not always perfectly but at least they tried.

Of course today Christianity is looking after the interests of the majority (the third world) at the expense of The West. That in and of itself is enough to eternally condemn it.

To condemn the institution of the Church as it is currently manifested, yes.

No such thing as a right to succeed….

Stupid Randians seem to think there is.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:47 | #

Narrator, I would think your estimate of 8% non-Whites is pretty good.  The biggest group of racial aliens is the Turks, who number just over 2 million.  There was a report recently on integration which singled out the Turks (and Middle Easterners) as especially unwilling to integrate.  I made a comment about this on the Junge Freiheit website (a sort of New Right paper, although they now disavow that label), saying that the fact that Turks stay to themselves (93% of Turks marry within their ethny) is actually good news, and that our goal shouldn’t be integration, and we should thank these Turks for not participating in that aspect of our genocide.  It didn’t make it out of moderation though, which surprised me a bit- I’ve commented there before without problem.  There was a lot of fanfare in the press a year or two back presenting Germany’s transition to an immigration nation as a fait accompli.  It was something like 20%+ of the population that fell into this category (many of whom would be Germans returning from Eastern territories and Eastern Europeans).  The failure to break this down by ethnicity is a good way to resign Germans to the import of millions more Turks and Africans.  The situation in the big cities is frightening.  I heard on the radio recently that something like 50% of kids entering school in Nuremberg have an immigrant background (probably mostly Turkish, Middle Eastern, African, though they didn’t break it down).  Maybe if the statistics from this age cohort were presented more often, it would be clearer to Whites that they are being race-replaced.  At least those who think beyond their own lifetime would take notice. 

I’m pretty sure they were there long before the Black Death hit.

Yes, you’re right.  My point was only to say that European elites have in the past also worked against the ethnic interests of the majority population (who knows what they would have done if they were able to import millions of Africans).  Some people (I’m not saying you) glorify the rulers from the past, saying they would not race-replace us.  I think this danger was always there, and the push provided by Jewish groups has perhaps not met with that much less resistance now than it would have in many parts of Europe back then.  But I think the peasants then would have openly revolted, so the elites would have quickly trashed the idea.  There were no media or academia to inform these beknighted peasants that race doesn’t exist (and that they would look better as mullatos) and that defending their ethnic interests is a mental illness.

MacDonald does suggest though in SAID that in the Middle Ages the Church was often the only organization that represented the interests of the majority people (e.g. against Jewish usury).

  Posted by Dasein on February 18, 2009, 12:21 PM

I’m pretty sure Kmac was referring to the political organization known as the Catholic Church, not the religion it espoused.

Of course today Christianity is looking after the interests of the majority (the third world) at the expense of The West.
That in and of itself is enough to eternally condemn it.

It’s the political organizations of Christianity in the West today that are to be condemned, not Christianity itself.  If there were healthy expressions of it in the past, I don’t see why they can’t return.  I’d take members of the SSPX over your average citizen (who is a brainwashed liberal) any day.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:57 | #

That wasn’t an intentional pun, I got carried away into the era.  The actions of the peasants would have been knightly, made possible by their ‘benighted’ state.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:43 | #

I agree that a majority of people make the claim that they are Christians and but I disagree about how hard it is to define. Historically, it was Catholics and it was continental, Scottish and English versions of Calvinistic, Reformed Protestants that considered themselves, and were, Christians proper and it is the same today.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

Except that Protestants didn’t (and most still don’t) consider Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to be Christians.

However, you haven’t disputed the premises of the argument or its conclusion and instead are squabbling over a definition.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

Because your assertion is based on the ability to define the subject of its premise. I’ve known Christians who didn’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. I’ve even met Christians who don’t believe Jesus even existed to begin with.

Case in point, I was brought up Christian and went to a Christian school. I was taught (and believed) by Pastors and teachers that Christianity didn’t arrive in Europe until after the time of Martin Luther. Or rather, what few Christians there were, were living in caves and the forest to escape persecution from the devil’s minions, aka “Papists”.
So from a Protestant point of view I held that proir to the 16th Century Europe was under the sway of the satanic monstrosity known as the Catholic Church (or “Whore of Babylon” as it is popularly referred to in Protestant circles).
Thus, there was no Christian Europe when Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

So this gets back to the question, “What or who is a Christian”. You’ll give one answer but ten other people will give ten different ones. Which gets back to my initial comment in regards to your argument. I said, ‘Christianity is far too watery a quality to define in a way strong enough to say who has it and who doesn’t, what it is and what it isn’t.’

But then as I also asserted, I believe Christianity is formed and informed by people. In Europe Christianity was simply the new name given to indigenous European Paganism. It’s only original contribution was the thing for which I begrudge it so much, Universalism. 

“The only problem with that assertion is that neo-liberalism (and all of its ideological offspring) came to fruition within “Christendom”, not without. In fact the majority of Western men still believe there is a god or “higher authority” beyond the material world, so we’ll probably never know (in our lifetimes) what atheistic materialism would have, or could have, done for The West.”
-the Narrator…

It did not. As Christianity slowly died, liberalism sprung up as God in His place because God is an inescapable concept. The majority of men believe in some ill defined cosmic grandfather who looks down with benevolence from his starry rocking chair but they do not believe in the Christian God of yore.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

Well, theism appears to be an inescapable concept, but we’ll never know now.

But your assertion above is rather bold as most Western Peoples considered themselves Christians up until about 90 years ago. ( Modern liberalism sprang up in their midst centuries before then) In fact it would appear that the majority of Westerners still consider themselves Christians. 

So they were/are liars, lunatics or they were what they claimed to be, Christians.

Our leaders, the media, the schools and the professorial class are already living and espousing an atheistic materialist worldview so we will (at least I will, being only 25) see the fruit of this philosophy in our lifetime.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

A lifetime is very VERY short.
A couple hundred years is a bleep on the radar.

God has no problem with diversity of practice.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

The Christian God has no problem with diversity period. The West does.

It is just a mathematical proportion so although there is more conflict over all, it really doesn’t concern me. The only limitation is our ability to exploit the Earth.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

It’s a question of Quality of Life.
But I’m a country boy, so I’m biased.
I dislike minorities but I don’t like anybody enough that I’d want them living within 500 yards of me.

I’m pretty sure Kmac was referring to the political organization known as the Catholic Church, not the religion it espoused.
-the Narraor

Yes, but what did they gain from standing up to the dukes for the peasants?
Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

Don’t forget that on a few occasions the peasants overthrew and beheaded the lords and kings. There were power struggles throughout Europe between the Catholic church and the royals. Especially in the North.
This culminated in the Protestant Reformation, which cut a sizable slice of income from the Catholic church which in turn curbed its power, reach and influence.

9 times out of 10, the answer to a Why is, Money.

To condemn the institution of the Church as it is currently manifested, yes.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 10:41 AM

The “Church” is based on a philosophical worldview that espouses Universalism. That, is the problem.

It isn’t the building that’s faulty. It’s the blueprints….

.

Posted by Colin Laney on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:46 | #

As Christianity slowly died, liberalism sprung up as God in His place because God is an inescapable concept. The majority of men believe in some ill defined cosmic grandfather who looks down with benevolence from his starry rocking chair but they do not believe in the Christian God of yore.

[. . . ]

Of course today Christianity is looking after the interests of the majority (the third world) at the expense of The West. That in and of itself is enough to eternally condemn it.

To condemn the institution of the Church as it is currently manifested, yes.

This claim and claims like it, seen all over the internet, or at least where particular Christians congregate, is flatly wrong. The suicidal erasure of the self-other distinction demanded by Christ (please note, not “Christianity”) was well in effect before “liberalism”, feminism, cultural Marxism, Bolshevism or any of its other toxic metabolites.

I think we can all agree that 1607 might afford us a look at the ‘pristine’ Christianity that purportedly existed, prior to its ‘subversion’ by any of the above malefactors. At the very least, it would have to be admitted by the Christianist faction that Christian practitioners of 1607 would at least qualify as worshipping the Christian God ‘of yore’.

http://vdare.com/carter/070513_jamestown.htm

The colonists even set aside 10,000 acres for the purpose of building a Christian college for Indians. The man put in charge was George Thorpe, perhaps the first diversicrat in American history. Although his official title was “deputy of the college lands” and he reported to the governor of the colony, he conceived of a much larger role for himself. As Thorpe saw it, the failure to convert the Indians was due to the bigotry of the colonists. What was needed, he believed, was Christian kindness and understanding.

“Thorpe came to believe”, Price explains, “that the veterans of the colony wrongly viewed the natives as antagonistic and untrustworthy . . . It was time, he said, to put these preconceptions aside, and to make the natives feel loved”. As Thorpe wrote:

“In my poore understandinge if there bee wronge on any side it is ours who are not soe charitable to them as Christians ought to bee, they beinge (espetiallye the better sort of them) of a peaceable and vertuous disposition.”
He went on to recommend that the company should provide the natives with gifts, especially English clothing, and should make a public declaration of their love and affection for the Indians and their intent to convert them to Christianity.

[. . . ]

Thorpe set to work putting his theories into practice. With the governor’s backing, he had powers that today’s diversicrats would envy. To make the natives feel as welcome as possible, he reversed earlier practices and allowed them to roam throughout the colony freely. He also made sure that anyone who harassed the Indians or made them feel uncomfortable was promptly disciplined. When a few Indians complained to him of being frightened by some dogs that had barked at them, Thorpe had the dogs publicly hanged. “He thought of nothing too deare [costly] for them”, Price quotes one chronicler as writing, “and as being desirous to binde them unto him by many courtesies, hee never denied them any thing that they asked him.”

[ . . .]

The Indians’ new leader was a particular object of Thorpe’s interest. Powhatan had been succeeded after his death in 1618 by his brother Opitchapam. But real power lay in the hands of another brother, Opechancanough, the man who years earlier had wanted to destroy Jamestown. Thorpe lavished attention and generosity on Opechancanough. He built him an English-style house, and discussed with him the possibility of sending Indian boys to come and live in the colony and receive an English education. No doubt he hoped that separating the boys from their families would make them easier to convert and civilize. During their conversations, Opechancanough hinted that he was considering converting to Christianity. Everything, it seemed, was working as planned.

Then, late in 1621, a few colonists received word from some disaffected Indians that Opechancanough was planning an attack. This caused a brief panic, but the chief of the Powhatans denied everything. The English took him at his word. “It was more appealing”, Price writes, “from the colonists’ point of view, to assume the best than to assume the worst, since the lookout duty was an unwelcome diversion of energy from more lucrative pursuits.”

And so everything continued as usual—until the morning of Friday, March 22, 1622. It began like any other. The Indians traded and bartered with the settlers, worked along side them, ate at their tables, smiled and laughed and interacted with them in all of the ways that the English had come to expect. There was not the slightest indication that anything out of the ordinary was going to happen.

Then, all of the sudden, the natives began their attack. As Price writes, the Indians “slaughtered men, women, and children with the colonists’ own swords and work tools—axes, knives, saws, and hammers. In an instant, hundreds of English were lying lifeless.” According to one contemporary report, the Indians:

“Not being content with taking away life alone . . . fell after againe upon the dead, making as well as they could, a fresh murder, defacing, dragging, and mangling the dead carcasses into so many pieces, and carrying some parts away in derision, with base and brutish triumph.”

As for George Thorpe, the objects of his affection subjected him to a special fate. Isolated on his plantation, he received no news of the attack. One of his servants found the natives’ behavior suspect and warned his master, but Thorpe brushed his fears aside. The servant wisely fled.

Shortly thereafter, the natives fell upon the plantation and stabbed Thorpe to death. Then, it was reported, they “cruelly and felly [fiercely], out of devilish malice, did so many barbarous despights and foule scornes after to his dead corpse, as are unbefitting to be heard by any civill eare.”

So much for Christian charity.

1607 to 2007 . . . does anyone else detect a distinctly modern odor to Thorpe’s behavior?  I think we have another case here of the leopard not changing its spots. I suppose the demand that we “condemn the institution of the Church as it is currently manifested” - regarding current Catholic doctrine towards immigration - can now be retroactively applied to the the Church as it was manifested in the early seventeenth century.  With the Enlightenment more than a century in the future, who can be blamed for this inexplicable placing of another people’s safety and happiness over one’s own? - even to the point of suppressing justifiable fears about people who had, time and again, proved themselves untrustworthy and savage. How does this differ in one iota from the sort of Christian that is denounced here and at Spirit Water Blood as being somehow an aberration? If anything, Thorpe is the prototype. 

I propose that Thorpe’s case demonstrates a deeper pathology at work in the Christian worldview that is going to have to be dealt with more honestly in the future. It is not enough to pretend that it arose ex nihilo in the XXth century, or that a good and valiant religious system was undermined by sneaky Bolsheviks and ‘liberals’ only very recently. 

By my reckoning, the arrow of causation goes from race-hostile Christianity to liberalism, Bolshevism, etc. and not the reverse.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:17 | #

Narrator, I would think your estimate of 8% non-Whites is pretty good.  The biggest group of racial aliens is the Turks, who number just over 2 million.  There was a report recently on integration which singled out the Turks (and Middle Easterners) as especially unwilling to integrate.

Posted by Dasein on February 19, 2009, 11:47 AM

Sorry to hear it. I was hoping I was wrong.

Sometimes it is hard to interpret the demographic in Europe because the issue is cast in terms of foreigners regardless of race.
I realize it is a serious issue for Europeans in regards to immigration from other European nations, but from an American point of view it’s all about the numbers of non-Whites.

The ever useless Wikipedia states that Whites make up around 95% of Europe. Factoring in Eastern Europe that may be true.
I’d like to think so, but who knows.

Some people (I’m not saying you) glorify the rulers from the past, saying they would not race-replace us.  I think this danger was always there, and the push provided by Jewish groups has perhaps not met with that much less resistance now than it would have in many parts of Europe back then.  But I think the peasants then would have openly revolted, so the elites would have quickly trashed the idea.

Posted by Dasein on February 19, 2009, 11:47 AM

I’m no expert on this but I think back then one thing that worked in our favor was the fact that crowns and significant titles went to the first born sons. The other sons were, essentially, pushed into a middle-class type situation.
This meant that the royals composed both upper and secondary echelons of European societies. And the proximity (and interaction) of that middle strata to the bottom (peasants) effectively bridged the gap. There was a more symbiotic relationship the three strata then.
The post industrial age is seeing the removal of the middle class and with it the former relationship/bridge it created between the elite and the “peasants”.

But that’s just conjecture.

There are always more variables at work that complicate and exacerbate matters. Jews being a good example.

...

Posted by colin laney on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:13 | #

God has no problem with diversity of practice.

That’s not what I hear. Does the phrase ‘extra ecclesiam’ ring a bell?

There are also outstanding questions about the use of (graven?) imagery in the RCRO and the nature of the veneration of the Virgin - latria, dulia, or hyperdulia? For some, a critical question. Does God’s inclusiveness - in your view - extend to ‘hyperdulia’ for the Virgin?

There is also the ever troublesome filioque, and I believe there are still open questions about the proper method of baptism. Of course neither of these come close to the Arian controversy, of which Gibbon observed “the profane of every age have derided the furious contests which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the Homoiousians”.

Not to mention that the Eastern Church denies Augustinian Original Sin and all that follows from that, including the atoning sacrifice of Christ. For the Orthodox, Christ’s life and incarnation make possible theosis, the assimilation of man to God. To them, Western atonement theology - Roman and Protestant - is one long morbid Augustinian error that distorts and degrades the true meaning of Christ’s Incarnation.

To which I say: that’s putting it mildly!

It does no good to brag about a God who left you a big book of specific instructions (as opposed to the clockmaker god) if they don’t matter, and no one is to be held to task for violating them. And surely the big book of instructions provides a privileged hermeneutic by which it is to be interpreted? I mean, if it didn’t, that could lead to thousands of years of totalitarianism, schismatic movements, and unending war. Which might tend, in some eyes, to bring the whole project into disrepute.

Don’t forget that on a few occasions the peasants overthrew and beheaded the lords and kings. There were power struggles throughout Europe between the Catholic church and the royals. Especially in the North.

The Guelph/ Ghibelline conflict was regarded by many notables, including Dante and Evola, as being a pivotal conflict for the the soul of the West.

And though I endorse KMac’s generally positive reading of the political activities of the Church, there are a lot of misdeeds in the other column, many of which are never publicly discussed. What was the effect on the European population of herding everyone with curiosity or reading skills into a condition of celibacy? I’ve never seen a good breakdown of what must have been a profound eugenic effect.

And, of course, there’s the Church’s cardinal sin, the ushering of the Jews unscathed through history (for details, please see the works of Franz Rosenzweig). Though other opponents of the Church disappeared (I am now thinking of the Cathars) through the use of the most extreme forms of violence (the total genocide of the Albigensian region), the Jews emerged unscathed from 1500 years of Catholic shepherding and have positively thrived under the loving ministrations of Protestants, who have been falling all over themselves for the last five hundred years to give them unquestioned control of the whole world.

Does it strike anyone else here as odd that the men of the west have been more or less trying continuously to hold Jersusalem - “The Holy Land” - since, oh, forever? Don’t we have anything better to do with our lives and treasure than to secure the ‘shitty little country’ in perpetuity to satisfy the grandiose unto psychotic whims of the People of the Lie?

Think about it - from Richard II all the way up to Arthur Balfour -what more profound continuity in English history is there than the attempt to secure and hold “The Holy Land”, at whatever cost? An imperative now inherited by Americans, whose participation in reason is blunted by reason of their vulgar Protestantism.

They don’t call it the “Common Era” for nothing.

Securing Jerusalem and placing Jews atop a world system erected by Aryans seems to be a major occult dynamic of Western history where “The West” is clearly understood to be an extended phenotype of Judah/ Judaism, and soon to be tossed on the scrap heap of history, its main jobs completed. I think Englishmen and Americans need to give themselves a little pat on the back here. They’ve done more than anyone else in history - including the Jews themselves! - to bring about the Messianic Age. Surely this should take the edge off any pain experienced during our dispossesion and murder at the hands of Mexicans, Negroes, and Muslims, who along with the Asian technocratic elite, will toil and manage the world that Jews now rule. We’re hardly in a position to complain, since when we adopted the Jewish holy books as our own, they told the truth about what was to be our fate:

Exodus 23:27 “I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come”

Psalms 2:8-9 “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Isaiah 60:1-12 “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you; your gates shall be open continually; day and night they shall not be shut; that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, with their kings led in procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste.”

Zephaniah 3:8 “Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.”

And so on, and so on, ad nauseam . . .

The nightmare outside your front door is the answer to the question, what happens when you worship a god who hates you? Well, now you know.

And you can’t say you weren’t warned. Traditionally, we Americans take a very dim view of those who sign on to contracts that they haven’t read or considered at some length. I see no reason to end that tradition now.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:36 | #

The denizens of the Guardian’s CiF lay into the SSPX.  Some poor fool defends it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:58 | #

“Some poor fool defends it.”  (—GW)

“Wynnstow” in that Guardian thread is no fool, GW (something tells me you’re not beyond being persuaded of that, on reconsidering .....).

The man Horn who wrote the execrable essay being commented on over there is clearly simply a Jew tooting the solipsistic Jewish horn — nothing new here:  same old same old.  I could write that pure narcisso-solipsistic Jewish boilerplate in my sleep. 

I recognize only two possible Catholicisms today:  Bishop Williamson’s group and the Sedevacantists.  All else claiming to represent Catholicism is an impostor ...... or worse.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:08 | #

And though I endorse KMac’s generally positive reading of the political activities of the Church, there are a lot of misdeeds in the other column, many of which are never publicly discussed. What was the effect on the European population of herding everyone with curiosity or reading skills into a condition of celibacy? I’ve never seen a good breakdown of what must have been a profound eugenic effect.

Hart reasons in UHH that there was no dysgenic effect on IQ (based on IQ comparisons between Eastern and Western Europe).  Could be any of several reasons for this, some conjecture on my part: the % of priests was too low to affect the gene pool significantly, priests were not always celibate, priests were able to increase the reproductive fitness of their immediate family members, priests acted to direct eugenic mating habits in their parishes. 

Using this same reasoning, you could argue that their celibacy would also have affected distribution of the heriditary basis for faith (which would be an interesting theory for the secularization of the West).  Unless of course one assumes they were no more faithful than the average person or other high-IQ peasants whose faith would have made them try harder to join the Church.  But if the faith allele(s) became rarer, we should have become more resistant to Judeophilia, assuming the connection to Christianity which has been posited.

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:17 | #

The ‘same reasoning’ I’m referring to is that quoted from CL’s post. 

It could be argued that the basis for Hart’s thesis is wrong, and that Western Europeans started off with higher average IQs than Eastern Europeans and the dysgenic effect of celibate priesthood whittled away this gap.  Not saying I believe this myself, just pointing out an assumption of Hart’s (I personally don’t think there was a dysgenic effect in terms of IQ- there could still have been a ‘dysgenic’ or ‘eugenic’ effect on faith, choose whichever adjective you prefer!).

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:42 | #

I would certainly say, Fred, that Wynnstow bears all the hallmarks of someone who is actively trying to say the unsayable under the censor’s nose.

Posted by Armor on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:23 | #

The suicidal erasure of the self-other distinction demanded by Christ (—Colin Laney)

It is questionable whether George Thorpe, the first American diversicrat, was evil or stupid (or under Jewish influence through too much Bible reading!). But today’s race-replacers and race-mixers are clearly malicious, and not directly inspired by the Christian tradition. They are the kind who like to take a crap in a field of snow. They are not interested in helping third-worlders, they just want to hurt us. Their actions contradict the “message of love” that we are supposed to find in the New Testament. If we kick their butts to jerk them back to reality and make them understand more clearly that what they are doing is wrong, they will not turn the other cheek, they will react viciously and try to have us thrown in jail. I bet George Thorpe was not like that.

I agree with the Narrator that not all self-described Christians are the same. Some of them are friendly and helpful, others want to destroy our lives. I think it isn’t clear in the first place what Jesus Christ was trying to say to his apostles.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:54 | #

Fred,

“This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.”

Wynnstow

19 Feb 09, 11:42am

CommentRestricted: do not try to deny old Jewish anti-Gentilism

That will certainly get your comment restricted here. There are many subjects that the liberal mind simply cannot abide being aired. Hundreds of bannings at CiF result from efforts to point out disparities between African and European, as if egalitarian ideological purity is somehow better than knowledge. The hatred and racism of the shouty little monsters who scream “Racist” every five minutes are never challenged by the moderators.

But, even so, the liberal attachment to scientifically unviable racial egalitarianism and, most ridiculously, to “fighting hatred in all its forms” pales beside the absolute command to place no historical responsibility upon Jewry for its 2,000 years of conflict with European peoples. The memes of European “anti-semitism”, “irrational hatred”, “authoritarian conservatism” etc are, though racist and hateful in themselves, permitted full rein here and across the spectrum.

In large measure Bishop Williamson in particular and the SSPX in general are despised by the liberal Catholic heirarchy and by the secular Establishment because they pay not the slightest heed to liberal pieties, but cleave to their own beloved faith. As they should.

Freedom of conscience is an important freedom. It is not respected by liberals. How they square this with the image they have of themselves as guardians of freedom in the world I simply have no idea.

Advanced Liberalism is not a bringer of freedom but an enslaver of thought and a servant of group agendas.

and

Wynnstow

19 Feb 09, 12:43pm

david119: Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly the most disgusting kind of anti-Semite, there is no doubt at all.

Example?

one poster is allowed to suggest that anti-Semitism is justified because Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus and the comment isn’t even moderated away ... On the other hand when we are discussing Zionism or Hamas, hysterical accusations of “anti-Semitism” come thick and fast and the moderation suddenly becomes ultra sensitive ...

Should opinion be banned? Ever? Isn’t it better always to engage with it and defeat it in open debate?

Obviously. But that is not what happens here and elsewhere across the liberal universe.

Where did this desire to silence opposition come from? It seems to me to be always a characteristic of, and corruption by, Power. Powerful minorities, whether ideological as in the case of liberals or ethnic as in the case of Jewry (vis-a-viz the prescriptive nature of Holocaust belief and the demonisation and criminalising of revisionism), are most wont to punish their opposers as the assumption of Power provides the means to do so.

Lord Acton was right. Freedom requires constant vigilance against the depredations of the powerful. And what we are seeing in our lifetime is the totalising which inevitably follows from the failure to be vigilant.

We were never threatened by some inate European “racism” or “hatred”. It is all a lie got up to distract us. The pity is that so many people of European descent have completely internalised it, and allowed the liars to sashay unopposed towards their goal.

The theme common to all three comments is that Jews, not Europeans, are the aggressor.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:46 | #

Everything by Wynnstow has been removed by the moderator, and he has been banned!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:23 | #

GW, do Jews have input at the Guardian or is it an entirely English-run outfit?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:24 | #

Fred,

It is the least Jewish of any MSM or MSM group I know.  I would characterise it as core liberal.  That’s at the top of the organisation, of course.  There are many Jewish journalists and contributors, naturally.  And down among the lowly moderators, who knows?

Certainly from my experiences the three subjects that get one’s comments deleted are: native English rights (eventually, with a ban at the second or third thread-crime); black sociobiology (immediately, with an immediate ban highly probable), Jewish malfeisance (immediately, with a certain ban).

The dumb-liberal brain desease they all suffer from is “Rid the World of Hate”.  They have no idea that they are suffering from a mind-virus or where this virus was incubated, and cannot be told because that’s “hate”.  But as I’ve said before, I do not mind what mental desease these goofs are suffering from.  It isn’t them I am trying to reach.  It’s the hundreds and, probably, thousands of readers who never comment.

Next to each post is a recommend button, whereby readers can click their approval.  Just beneath it is a report button where they can snitch on the “racist” and the “hater”.  I get a lot more recommends than my opponents.  I also get snitched on, which obviously they don’t.

Currently, I am banned by the supposedly right-wing Telegraph.  I’ve tried posting a bland comment on a neutral thread with another name, and it did not appear either.  So I presume that this is an IP-ban.  Time to switch on Anonymizer.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:58 | #

“Next to each post is a recommend button, whereby readers can click their approval. [...] I get a lot more recommends than my opponents.”  (—GW)

That doubtless angers them even more, accelerating your banning.  Can’t have the readership imagining they prefer <strike>the truth</strike> hate to <strike>left-wing propaganda</strike> the truth, now can we.  How dare you do that to their readership, confusing them like that!  Fascist!

Posted by danielj on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:42 | #

The Narrator & Colin:

There is simply too much to address. Perhaps I will get to it this weekend.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:48 | #

From The Times:-

Bishop Richard Williamson ordered to leave Argentina

An English bishop who denies the holocaust has been ordered to leave Argentina.

Bishop Richard Williamson has been give ten days to leave the country or face expulsion after global controversy over his views and the Vatican’s attitudes towards them.

The Argentine Interior Ministry said Bishop Williamson’s statements on the Holocaust “profoundly insult Argentine society, the Jewish community and all of humanity by denying an historic truth” ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:42 | #

Williamson’s roasting over the coals which is now more and more going to unfold is incontrovertible proof of Jewish power.  Full stop.  End of story.  One can be certain the Jews are throwing everything they have into a behind-the-scenes fight to destroy Bishop Williamson. They CANNOT let him get away with it because if cracks like this open in the quietly-decided-behind-closed-doors post-war agreement to replace whites with mystery meat, Christianity with Ho£ocau$t™ Worship, and Western national economies with tribute payments one way or another to the West’s Jewish Oligarchs and the State of Israel the entire system could come crashing down.  We don’t see the fight itself because it’s raging behind the scenes.  That vicious, filthy Guardian piece by Andrew Horn was of course part of it, part of one tip of the unseen iceberg.  Messages are frantically going back and forth among Jews concerning how this bishop will be brought down, and this Jew Horn stepped up and did his bit.  It’s all to be orchestrated.  For the Jews this is war.  Everything we’ve seen so far that’s been against Bishop Williamson has been part of it and there’s way more to come.  The Jews are going to flay this man alive.  I believe we will definitely see the Vatican cave to Jewish pressure.  That’s how strong the West’s Jews have become in the war’s aftermath:  they give the United States, Canada, the U.K., France, and the Vatican their marching orders.  Of course another manifestation of that is the Jewish imposition of race-replacement of every Eurosphere country in existence. 

Catholics everywhere must write, e-mail, telepone, and personally visit, to express support for this Bishop.  The Jewish Oligarchs who control us in the West are no more invincible than the Russian version before Putin sorted them out.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:10 | #

The suicidal erasure of the self-other distinction demanded by Christ (—Colin Laney)

Not exactly.

David Sloan Wilson tells us in Darwin’s Cathedral, we must recognize that religions are human institutions and belief systems evolving by the process which biologists term “group selection.” Religions potentially offer practical, social, and motivational benefits to their adherents. But religions differ among themselves in the degree to which they motivate their adherents to have children, to rear those children to become productive members of society, and to convert or kill believers in competing religions. Those religions that are more successful in these respects will tend to spread, and gain and retain adherents, at the expense of other religions.

The utility of Jews over Cathars is explained by Dr. Jones examination of the Polish arenda system.

This phenomenal expansion of the Jewish population in Poland was matched by a correspondingly rapid increase in wealth, and that, in turn, corresponded to a dramatic expansion of the territorial limits of Poland. The Golden Age of Polish Jews, according to Pogonowski, lasted from 1500 to 1648. By 1634, which is to say toward the closing years of this age, Poland had become the largest country in Europe. Its territory extended from the Baltic almost to the Black Sea and from Silesia in the west to what is now the heart of the Ukraine, two hundred kilometers east of the Dnieper River.

The Jews were the perfectly foil for the Polish nobility and the Catholic Church. The immutable Jew, racially and religiously forever, ineluctably superior renders the greatest profit from the lesser gentile. The nobles use the new found wealth to expand their territory, further increasing their wealth and the opportunity for their church to add new followers and thus increase its wealth and power. 

Wilson:

Something as elaborate—as time-, energy-, and thought-consuming —as religion would not exist if it didn’t have secular utility. Religions exist primarily for people to achieve together what they can-not achieve alone. The mechanisms that enable religious groups to function as adaptive units include the very beliefs and practices that make religion appear enigmatic to so many people who stand outside of them.

  Demographic change in a population depends upon births, deaths, immigration [i.e., conversion in the case of religion], and emigration [i.e., abandoning one’s religion]. The balance of these inputs and outputs must be positive for any religion to persist, but their relative importance can vary widely.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:50 | #

The Narrator & Colin:

There is simply too much to address. Perhaps I will get to it this weekend.

Posted by danielj on February 19, 2009, 09:42 PM

Danielj it wasn’t my intention to be part of a tag team. You do an admirable job of defending your faith. If you want to continue debating here fine, but if not don’t worry about it. I forget or don’t have time to go back and check up on every comment I’ve made on various posts and I’m sure the same is true for you and others. We can always pick up the conversation again in another post.

One thing I will say in regards to the persecution of Bishop Williamson is that it should shock people around the globe. The only thing that can be compared to it today is the persecution defectors of Islam face in Muslim nations.

And that’s what the Holocaust should be compared to. Islam.

If you’ll pardon me going theological for a moment,

The Holocaust is a religion, not an event. It is promoted as the faith to replace Christianity. In this new narrative the jews themselves replace Christ on the cross and Auschwitz replaces Calvary.

Belief in the Holocaust is, to use Biblical Parlance, the Abomination of Desolation. It is intended to be (in the minds of men) the sacrifice (Holocaust means burnt offering) that replaces Christ on the cross.
And it is the tool that is used to lay waste to nations and establish a new global regime in their place.

Interestingly enough the phrase Anti-christ generally translate to, In place of Christ. So it would no be inaccurate to say that Holocaustianity is the religion of the Antichrist.

...

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:55 | #

If it is to be a tag team, I nominate this man for the Christian side:

Posted by danielj on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:02 | #

Danielj it wasn’t my intention to be part of a tag team.

I’m well aware and worry free.

You do an admirable job of defending your faith. If you want to continue debating here fine, but if not don’t worry about it.

Thank you very much.

I forget or don’t have time to go back and check up on every comment I’ve made on various posts and I’m sure the same is true for you and others. We can always pick up the conversation again in another post.

I simply meant the same thing. I’m not sure whether or not everybody here works full time but I do and it sometimes gets in the way of my thinking and posting.

The Holocaust is a religion, not an event. It is promoted as the faith to replace Christianity. In this new narrative the jews themselves replace Christ on the cross and Auschwitz replaces Calvary.

Indeed! I’m not sure where I picked it up but it was probably an HR site talking about the Jews interpreting their own “suffering” during the second global fratricidal conflict as bringing “salvation” to the world. As if they themselves, in the collective, are Messiah the Prince.

Interestingly enough the phrase Anti-christ generally translate to, In place of Christ. So it would no be inaccurate to say that Holocaustianity is the religion of the Antichrist.

Yes, in the Greek it can and does imply “in steed of” or “instead of” and not simply “against.”

Holocaustianity, Onebloodianity, No rated R movieanity, No profanityanity and a slew of other silly rules they’ve made up.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:56 | #

Quite an interesting show of support on that Times thread about Williamson’s expulsion from Argentina - especially given the pre-moderated format of the Times, which will weed out the slightest hint of holobusting sympathies.  There will have been more support that didn’t make it onto the page.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:26 | #

Quite an interesting show of support on that Times thread about Williamson’s expulsion from Argentina - especially given the pre-moderated format of the Times, which will weed out the slightest hint of holobusting sympathies.  There will have been more support that didn’t make it onto the page.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 20, 2009, 12:56 PM

Well, I tried.

...

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:55 | #

Maybe we should just try to raise money and buy politicians at a higher price than their usual rate. If there is an economist around, please explain why I’m wrong.

I was saying this on Stormfront years ago.  If we got 1 million white men to contribute 1000 dollars a year, we could own Washington lock, stock, and barrel.  So maybe Soros & co. would send around the kiddie and outbid us the next year.  At least we’d be in the fight, and making them pay for their genocidal programs.

“They” know this too, which is why they police us so closely, why they fight so hard, why they act so psycho.  They can’t let whites get a whiff of reality, or game over.

The interest on 1 billion dollars could do an amazing amount of good.

For that matter, that billion dollars could send income taxes packing too.  Clearly the elite has its shit together, and we do not.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:01 | #

I was just reading this page at the Adelaide Institute web-site,

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Rudolf/Auschwitz_liberated_occupied.htm ,

which highlights inconsistencies in accounts of the ©Ho£o€au$t®™, including ones originating with Elie Weaselwords.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:02 | #

I’d take members of the SSPX over your average citizen (who is a brainwashed liberal) any day.

Pretty much sums up my thinking on the matter.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:52 | #

I’ve been pitching in on that Guardian thread, not been barred yet.

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:54 | #

Fred, here’s the interview I was mentioning:

http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Archiv.364.0.html

Some highlights:

Wir stehen für Liebe zur Familie und zum Vaterland mit seiner Kultur und Geschichte.

Es wurden hier religiöse Gefühle verletzt, und weil die Religion das Tiefste im Menschen ist, dürfen uns die vielen unsachlichen, zum Teil haßerfüllten Reaktionen nicht wundern.

I realized that most posters from Europe will have no idea who that man in my link was.  It’s ‘Dude Love’, one of the multiple personalities of WWF wrestler Mick Foley (the others, Mankind and Cactus Jack, also appropriate for the Christian theme).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude_Love

Here he is bustin a move: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k03Dp3Xzpd4&feature=related

Just one last comment on my part on the theme of Christianity.

Perhaps Jesus’ sacrifice is best understood as the sacralization of altruism and kin selection.  An update to the rule book and an offer to all other races to partake of the covenant.  Because altruism only makes evolutionary sense if it increases one’s fitness, each race is to behave in a Christian manner amongst its own members (Old Testament rules may apply to those outside the group).  Suicidal immigration policies are thus anti-Christian.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:01 | #

Dasein, thanks very much for that link to Junge Freiheit.  I guess their site’s temporarily down, but I did find the site on my own the other day after you mentioned it, and I browsed it — I like it and plan on making regular visits there. 

“Suicidal immigration policies are thus anti-Christian.”  (—Dasein)

I’m certain it must be childsplay for a theologian to verify that race-replacement is not only not mandated by Christianity, it’s opposed by it:  1)  Christianity which forbids acquiescence in suicide is going to allow acquiescence in race-suicide, a far worse crime?  And if race-suicide isn’t a far worse crime than suicide, genocide can’t be a far worse crime than murder, as the principle making the latter far worse is the same that makes the former far worse.  So since no one denies that genocide is a crime far worse than murder, by the same principle race-suicide must be a far worse crime than suicide, and if Christianity opposed the latter it must at least equally if not all the more oppose the former.  2)  Taking a precious inheritance away from others is oppposed by Christianity, and what inheritance is more precious than one’s race?  So race-replacement, which takes a precious inheritance away from every generation unborn, must be opposed by Christianity.  3)  Christian compassion denies Marxism’s requirement that Christians give all property and savings to the poor, so must also deny Cultural Marxism’s requirement that Christians give race and nation to the Third World poor since these are Christians’ dearest property.  4)  We saw in Bishop Williamson’s 2005 explanation that men’s equality, according to Christianity, is before God and part of the eternal life to come, NOT before men or part of this present life.  5) And so on, and so forth:  there is without any doubt an overwhelming case to be made in Christian theology against forced race-replacement provided of course no one resorts to meanness or injustice (and the setting of reasonable nation-and-race-preserving immigration policy is in no way mean or unjust).  J’ACCUSE!  I ACCUSE the Vatican of collaboration in genocide by its deliberate failure to 1) point this out to Catholics, that they are NOT required to accept their own genocide by excessive immigration of the racially unlike, and 2) by their failure to set their theologians to work to further clarify this issue where it may need further clarification.  The Vatican has done NOTHING of what it should have done in this regard and therefore is guilty of aiding and abetting genocide.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:24 | #

I don’t understand the following log entry:

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2786

I read it four times, then a fifth time slowly and carefully. 

But Kalb is sometimes like that — you have to be familiar with his vocabulary, otherwise you can read it as many times as you want, you won’t understand it.

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:50 | #

Fred, I also read it and found it confusing.  From my reading, one problem is that Kalb starts by repeating a dubious claim by Weigel and does not challenge it.

Thus his [Lefebvre’s] deepest animosities at the council were reserved for another of Vatican Council II’s reforms: the council’s declaration that “the human person has a right to religious freedom,” which implied that coercive state power ought not be put behind the truth-claims of the Catholic Church or any other religious body. -Weigel, from Newsweek article

This seems quite a stretch to me.  I think the fairer interpretation is that Lefebvre was upset that the Catholic Church had given up its claim to universality.

And Kalb’s response to Weigel’s claim is confused:

If that’s the issue, and modernity says “no” where the SSPX says “yes,” then it’s hard to explain why one of their bishops is now liable to criminal prosecution in modern Europe for what amounts to blasphemy: denying the factual reality of the moral absolute on which the public order of the EU grounds itself (that is to say, minimizing or denying the Holocaust).

No, it’s not hard to explain, because Vatican II was just one rite in the ascendancy of the Holocaust to the new European civil religion.  It’s perhaps ironic (if one were to accept Weigel’s dubious assertion), but it’s hardly surprising.  It seems Weigel is admitting that enforcement of this new civil religion occurs via state coercion (without ever showing that Lefebvre wanted to do things like put Europeans in jail for questioning Christian dogma).

The rest of Kalb’s article made more sense to me.  The public order will always have a religious dimension; there is no such thing as a secular society.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:06 | #

Dasein, I understand Kalb’s entry a little better now, thanks to your explanations.  (I had tried to understand it without reading the Newsweek article:  I hate reading Newsweek, which is part of this country’s Jewish anti-Euro press.  I always avoid reading anything in it, to the extent I can avoid it.)

Posted by Dasein on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:18 | #

Fred, I normally would avoid it too, but I was curious to see what George Weigel was saying.  I used to like reading his stuff, once upon a time.  BTW, I saw on the news that Bishop Williamson has flown to the UK.  There was footage of some reporter harassing him at the airport.  I thought Phil Rushton’s bagagge handling manoeuvre was a brilliant way to deal with these twits.  Don’t know if you’ve seen it, it was linked to on the AmRen news page back in December.

Here’s the video, the incident in question is replayed within the first 20 seconds:

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/globalshows/16x9/video.html?maven_playerId=16x9extralargeplayer&maven_referralPlaylistId=57eae7230ff532da4bd846f2e2cacf202504b614&maven_referralObject=3302787

Meanwhile, Wilders is now on the NA side of the pond, to the cheers of his Jewish pals:

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/02/23/a-dutch-hero-comes-to-warn-us-seek-our-support-the-incomparable-geert-wilders-mp-in-new-york-city/

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:38 | #

From Reuters:-

Holocaust-denying bishop makes apology

LONDON (Reuters) - A Roman Catholic bishop who caused an uproar by denying the scale of the Holocaust has apologised for his views in statements carried on a Catholic news agency website on Thursday.

Bishop Richard Williamson, a Briton, caused outrage by saying there were no gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps and that no more than 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, rather than the widely accepted figure of six million.

“I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them,” Williamson said, according to the website of Zenit, a Catholic news agency.

Zenit said Williamson’s comments were released by the Vatican’s “Ecclesia Dei” commission, a body established by Pope John Paul II in 1988 to try to bring breakaway traditionalist Catholics like Williamson back into the fold.

Williamson, who belongs to a traditionalist Catholic group called the Society of St. Pius X, was excommunicated after he was ordained as bishop in an unauthorised ceremony 20 years ago.

Pope Benedict last month lifted the excommunication of Williamson and three other traditionalists in an effort to heal the two-decade schism within the Roman Catholic church. The move has angered Jewish leaders and many Catholics.

Williamson, who has spent most of the past 30 years in Switzerland and the United States, before heading to a seminary in Buenos Aires, was asked to leave Argentina last week and returned to Britain.

In his statement carried by Zenit, Williamson said his views on the Holocaust were not those of an historian and were “formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since.”

“To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologise,” he said.

He did not say in his apology whether he had changed his views.

Soi he has taken the line of most resistance that will end the matter, hopefully.  Now the ball is in the Jews’ court.  If they insist on pursuing prosecution in Germany we will have Toben 2.  They won’t get their man , so I suspect they will be prepared to let the matter rest rather than publicise the Bishop’s opinions on the Big H.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:05 | #

Somebody get Williamson some knee-pads.  Fucking coward.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:14 | #

I just checked his blog:  there’s nothing about it there. 

My guess is this apology was written for him by the Vatican and he felt he could honestly sign it since he’s already expressed, at his blog, regret at the furore his statements have caused. 

There’s no chance whatsoever he’s changed his views.  Zero.  In this statement he retracts not one jot. 

His kind doesn’t break or bend, or change his mind every five minutes, or stick a wetted finger up into the wind to decide what he thinks.  This is not that kind of man. 

He’s taking, as GW suggests, the path of least resistance for the time being because he sees no dishonesty in it (and indeed there is none if one reads his statement carefully, none whatsoever) and he doesn’t want to be completely neutralized as a force for good in the Church and in the world.  He sees everything and he gives up nothing.

Posted by Armor on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:40 | #

He’s taking, as GW suggests, the path of least resistance for the time being because he sees no dishonesty in it (and indeed there is none if one reads his statement carefully, none whatsoever) and he doesn’t want to be completely neutralized as a force for good in the Church and in the world.  He sees everything and he gives up nothing.

A smart man !

Posted by when sub sub humans attack on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:51 | #

Williamson says 911 an inside job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HH_UCDhqY&feature=related

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:20 | #

“Williamson says 911 an inside job.”  (sub humans)

He’s not alone.  Lots of level-headed observers suspect that certain elements in D.C. were complicit in 9-11.  Paul Craig Roberts, himself a D.C. insider, is one such.  Here are a few others, men who’ve had long careers in U.S. intelligence and know a thing or two about “inside jobs”: 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm

I for one don’t have an opinion on this subject.  I go with the standard version but it wouldn’t surprise me any more (it would have at one time) to learn some faction in D.C. was indeed complicit.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:49 | #

Williamson says 911 an inside job.

That’s the default assumption—and the only evidence to the contrary is the testimony of the prime suspect.  The US government was the only one with both the motive and the opportunity to pull it off.  Res ipsa loquitur.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:19 | #

So what is Williamson’s reward for begging the Jews for forgiveness?  Nothing.  None less than a full retraction will do.  You should have stuck to your guns, Williamson, or kept your mouth shut to begin with.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_holocaust_denial 

“An apology from a bishop who denied the Holocaust wasn’t good enough, the Vatican said Friday, adding that he must repudiate his views if he wants to be a Roman Catholic clergyman.

The statement by Bishop Richard Williamson “doesn’t appear to respect the conditions” the Vatican set out for him, said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a spokesman for the pope.”“

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:18 | #

Regarding what CC quotes just above:  That’s the Jews pressuring the Vatican behind the scenes, and nothing else.  The pressure they’re bringing to bear on the Vatican right now must be staggering and it’s not primarily from specifically “Jewish” groups:  it’s also from Jew-influenced U.S. government agencies, Jewish-run or -influenced European national governments, Jewish-run or -influenced NGOs, and so on.  The Vatican takes its orders from the Jews now.  (“Are we powerful or what?,” as FB would imagine them saying to themselves.)

Posted by Armor on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:29 | #

I wonder if Williamson’s apology was a defense againt judicial attacks or a way to improve relations with the Pope. By the way, maybe Williamson and the Pope have good relations but are not allowed to say so…

CC: “So what is Williamson’s reward for begging the Jews for forgiveness?  Nothing.”

I don’t think it matters. From my point of view, the fact that both Williamson and the Pope have to kowtow to the Jews reflects badly on the Jews, not on Williamson. It helps people realize there is something wrong.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:48 | #

“It helps people realize there is something wrong.”  (—Armor)

I hope Catholics see it, though.  I hope they see that this is behind-the-scenes Jewish pressure, and enormous pressure at that.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:01 | #

As a student of drumming, danielj, you might ask your tutor if he can demonstrate stick control such as this young Ulsterman possesses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQDtOcpGY6Y

Despite the drummer’s distant historical connection with his ancestral homeland, one can tell from the backdrop flag where his true loyalties lie.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:59 | #

Bishop Williamson lets well-wishers know how he’s doing:

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2009/03/dont-cry.html

He’s OK — he’s apparently not at liberty to say much apart from he’s fine, he’s holding up well under the pressure, and he’s keeping his mouth SHUT for the time-being, as he’s been instructed to do in no uncertain terms: 

Moreover [my] rest-cure looks like it is being prolonged.  In a recent interview with the German weekly “Der Spiegel,” the Society’s Superior General is quoted to have said amongst other things, perhaps under pressure coming through the media, [...] “If Bishop Williamson is silent, if he stays out of sight, that would really be better for everyone… I hope that he drops out of public life for a long while… He has hurt the Society and damaged our reputation.  We are definitely distancing ourselves from him… ” 

Therefore the future is in God’s hands.  I wish I could say that I object to being reduced to silence but if the alternative is being reduced to saying only those things that the “gentlemen of the Press” do not object to, then I think I prefer the silence.”

He regrets that he was kicked out of Argentina so fast, he didn’t even have time to say a few decent good-byes to dear friends and colleagues there.

Finally:  it’s clear he is not recanting a word despite pressure on him of a magnitude that would break and crush lesser men.

God bless you, Bishop!