|
|
|
My dog-eared history of the h-word In 1975, when I turned twenty-four, I finally gave up the process of transforming perfectly innocent family cars into tortured scraps of metal and determined instead to pursue a career as a writer of some sort. My parents were so pleased by this life-saving decision that they immediately bestowed upon me a portable typewriter, a Collins English Dictionary, and a Roget’s Thesaurus. I’m not still clattering away at the keys of the typewriter. But the dictionary and the Thesaurus I do still possess. The Collins is the 1972 edition and, interestingly, this is its entry for a certain word beginning with “h”:
Notice anything missing? Well, language evolves, as we all know, and with the wonder of the internet dictionaries go on-line. Here is the on-line offering from Collins today:
My dog-eared Roget is undateable since the front cover and fly page went missing I know not when. But the index is still complete and lists the same two general definitions for the h-word, directing my attention to entry 991 for idolatry and 361 for killing, in that order. The latter lists twenty-seven substantives for the act of killing, one of which is holocaust. But like the Collins, Roget is also available today online, and lists thirteen much more lurid synonyms for holocaust. So under mass extermination we find:
And under mass killing of an ethnic group we find:
None of the lurid stuff appeared in entry 361 of my Roget, from which I draw a perfectly straightforward conclusion. Dictionaries and word compendiums are time-capsules of meaning. And whilst we are familiar with evolutions of those meanings driven by technological and social change, and can all cite examples, we are not so familiar with retrospectively-driven changes of the language. It is quite difficult to conceive of how a retrospectively-driven change might work, except as something deliberately engineered. As we’ve discussed previously there are several functions fulfilled by the narrative of the Holocaust (as opposed to the history of Poland, 1941-45) which was engineered into the public consciousness some time after 1972, according to my dictionary - I think, mostly from the 1980s. In any event, by 1988, forty-three long years after the war, the Holocaust Education Trust (current motto, apparently, “When we understand where prejudice leads we can stop it in its tracks”) had commenced its work on young minds in Britain:
Mind control - discourse control - control of the future - control of the present - political control. A full house. Not surprising, perhaps. They’ve had it all their own way. But this is only one small British cog in the global machine. I would be most interested in hearing the recollection of MR readers who lived through the seventies and eighties as adults, and also remember the first appearances of this utterly totalitarian and anti-white Jewish Leviathan. Comments:2
Posted by CFE on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 02:54 | # I was born in 1965. I remember seeing on television, when I was 8 or 9 years old, what purported to be documentary footage of a German dropping gas pellets through a hole in the roof of a gas chamber. I am quite sure it was presented as genuinely showing the actual deed being done. I can’t find that film now, though of course for years I believed, without really thinking about it. I was quite interested in the world from a young age, and grew up in an environment where, had the big H been a household meme, I would have been aware of it earlier than that. Though mine is not as dependable as the memory of an older person, I can say confidently that it began to take off in the early to mid seventies. Incidentally, one of the few things I remember from the history lessons I sat through as a lazy and indifferent student in my teens, is that one of the main reasons for WW2 was the League of Nations just not being muscular enough, and being let down by member states. Holocaustian propaganda is utterly pervasive. They shove it down our throats every single day without fail. Not a day goes by without a mention in the UK media, and doubtless throughout the white world. http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=14c5e8bbb14c5351a3acd89595c5634c&topic=11954.0 The power of the religion is truly awesome. I’m occasionally tempted to agree with those who say we should tactically refrain from attacking it. On the other hand, the boil cries out for lancing. It is what the enemy guards most fiercely. The loss of its power is what they fear most. 4
Posted by JImmy Marr on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 03:57 | # I was born in 1953, but don’t have any detailed memories of holohoax propaganda until I started researching the subject in about 2004. Even though my wife was born in the same year, her experience in quite different. She has vivid memories of repeated exposure to Jewish atrocity propaganda on television between the years of 1961 and 1963. She was plagued by nightmares stemming from these experiences until she reached the age of 35 years. She recalls these as taking the form of news documentaries and reportage from the Nuremberg Show Trials. The most damaging parts related to the filling of Jewess’ reproductive cavities with concrete, and the medical experiments of Dr. Mengela in which he repeatedly broke the arms of Jewish children to determine how many times they could be re-broken before they failed to heal.* These lies were not referred to by the trade name “Holocaust” at that time.
5
Posted by JImmy Marr on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:18 | # This is an example of the psychological warfare she reports having been exposed to on American television. She remembers the Buchenwald props distinctly. http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/buchenwald/videos/8.wmv 6
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 05:05 | # With the Holocaust something went terribly wrong 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:20 | # I’m a bit too young for you, GW. Growing up in the 70s I did have some Jewish friends. I do not recall their parents blathering about the Holocaust, however, or trying to teach me “lessons in tolerance”. When I reached university in the mid-80s, however, my very Jewish (28%+) Ivy League school was very, very conscious of the Holocaust. Obligatory references to it were sprinkled throughout philosophy and history (and even literature) classes. Jewish ‘thinkers’ (esp Marx - this was just before the fall of the Wall) seemed to be disproportionately represented in class readings, which was no surprise, given the heavily Jewish presence among the faculty. Of course, there were literally only a tiny handful of (barely) conservative professors on campus, mostly of an Eisenhower or Gerald Ford type. I think one guy, sort of an ass, was very proud of himself for publicly supporting Reagan. I recall thinking he was no better than a moderate liberal. There were no nationalists (except covertly among the student body; a number of us were public anti-communist, pro-military and free market, but privately among ourselves, quite racialist). I am not a Nazi, but I also should not be misconstrued as having any particular affection for Jewry. Their presence has obviously been bad for white EGI. My past comments pertain to tactics. I continue to think (as do Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and other unimpeachable defenders of the West) that it is better for race realists to focus our very limited ammunition on the biggest problems, like ending immigration. The Jews are very well integrated into American life, as well as hegemonic in media influence. Attacking them directly is unwise, even for Nazis (assuming their ultimate goal is saving our race, and not merely venting against Jews). It is much easier to expose the problems with visibly distinctive racial aliens than to try to explain the necessity of “reframing discourses” wrt Jewry. Jewish power is not physical (except in the Middle East), but relies on control of commercial networks. If whites can recover their racial honor, I think the Jew will fall into line. If not, it will be easier, post-mass-Awakening, to deal with him. 8
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:22 | # Pest Control’s ad in the daily newspaper The Final Solution: 9
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 07:59 | #
The science itself, even the so-called exact sciences, not to mention social sciences like history, economics etc, has become politically correct. Last summer I had attended an international physics workshop. The quality of scientific presentations was awful. I recall a funny episode. A presenter from one American university - I could tell by his name, his looks, and his accent that he was Jewish - wrapped up his presentation with a quote from Marx: “If my theory doesn’t work, I have others”. The quote was followed by a storm of benevolent laughter. After moment’s hesitation, I have remarked from my seat in the audience: “While dealing with Marx, one would be very well advised to clarify: doesn’t work FOR WHOM?”. It was fun and rewarding to observe how quick was the kike to catch my drift, but not the audience. When the sarcasm reached the audience, the laughter was almost hysterical. 10
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 08:24 | # There once was a fear based cult. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:46 | # To follow on from James’s link to Websters:
So it’s a Jew thang, and in English an attenuated meaning which, frankly, discerning people reject. 12
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:03 | # The ONLY people that put great emphasis on the subject on the Holocaust are Jews (for obvious reasons) and anti-Semites (in the case of anti-Semites it has more to do with Holocaust denial). In the latter case, anti-Semites are over obsessed with the subject. They blow the significance of its political utility all out of proportion. In fact, anti-Semites do a great disservice to their cause by waisting their time attacking the validity of the official Holocaust narrative. They further discredit themselves by dehumanizing Jews in general. The fact is: Jew bashing is not only counterproductive to our cause, it’s a sure way to ensure our defeat. Just ask yourselves: Has “Holocaust denial” or Jew bashing made the WN movement stronger or more marginalized, thus weaker? The answer is: It has made WN weaker and more marginalized (more accurately: KICKED OFF THE PAGE!). We must concentrate our efforts on the subject of putting an end to non-white immigration. I know it’s not as “fun” or cathartic or therapeutic as bashing Jews, but immigration of third-worlders is by far our greatest existential threat. It’s the current business model driving massive third-world immigration. The implementation of the current business model demands massive immigration in order to fuel economic growth. The involvement of Jewish groups, such as the SPLC and the ACLU et al, are being used by their more powerful business and government masters as tools to keep the white masses in line. Of course Goy hating Jews are more than happy to fill that secondary role. Bottom line: We are still a small group. Hence, we must pick our battles wisely. 13
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:12 | # >>>They further discredit themselves by dehumanizing Jews in general<<< Things only appear in this light to the racially unawakened, who by definition, do not perceive beyond the level of individuality. 14
Posted by Hail on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:36 | #
The joys and benefits of physical possession of books. What is scary is, if all text becomes electronic and exists somewhere in cyberspace rather than in our physical possession, the world is suddenly infinitely more malleable. Worldwide popular-understanding could be changed almost as fast as some PC-enforcer can make a wiki-edit. Old encyclopedias are especially interesting. Through the 1970s, they do not list any entry for “Holocaust”, and their extensive articles on WWII are the opposite of Judeocentric. Not a generation later, Le Pen was convicted for calling Jewish losses a “detail of history”. I suppose those “Holocaust-denying” surviving Britannica writers from days old will be hauled before courts next, now that Demjanjuk is gone (presumably the last of the camp guards). 15
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:55 | #
Do you ‘hate’ all Jews, most Jews, or just some Jews? and for what reason(s) do you ‘hate’ them? 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:22 | #
How on earth is that question - one of the intellectually inadmissable “wife-beating” variety, let it be said - related to the quote from Jimmy? 17
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:15 | # I don’t hate schizophrenics. I hate schizophrenia. 18
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:19 | # GW, My point is: WN’s discredit themselves when they paint all Jews with the same dehumanizing brush. Jimmy appears to take issue with that notion. His position is: Those whom are racially awakened operate beyond the level of individuality; thus, think it’s perfectly okay to indiscriminately bash Jews.
I hate some Jews, but only those who practice Jewish Supremacism. 19
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:26 | #
I guess that’s why you spend so much time hanging around inside the loony bin. lol 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:28 | #
No, that is not what he meant. He is saying something about conventional thinking as it first encounters the challenges of nationalist discourse. 21
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:00 | # GW, What you think Jimmy meant to say makes sence. But what YOU think he meant is NOT what Jimmy, himself, meant.
To which he said: “Things only appear in this light to the racially unawakened, who by definition, do not perceive beyond the level of individuality.” —————————————— Hell! I consider myself VERY racially awakened and KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that dehumanizing ALL Jews is a sure way to discredit ourselves. P E R I O D. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:53 | # 1. We will await Jimmy’s Solomonesque judgement. 2. How many dissident Jews beside Gilad Atzmon and Mordechai Vanunu can you name? 23
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:00 | # Thorn, GW understands what I’m trying to say better than I understand it myself, which is why I hang out in the looney bin. Jew-think is self-dehumanizing. Jews collectively perceive themselves as a divine entity. To the extent that they think of it at all, they think of it not as dehumanizing themselves, or even as super-humanizing themselves. Instead, they think of themselves merely as uniquely human, which automatically imputes sub-human status to other races, and makes them deserving of eradication through genetic homogenization. A very jealous god, indeed, this Jew. 24
Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:56 | #
In a certain context I agree with you. If you define “Jew Bashing” as VNN-style obscenity then you’re right. Otherwise, it is my firm belief that the West will not survive unless it somehow breaks the power of Jewry. We are not going to fix immigration or social policies while the Jewish stranglehold on the West exists. The Jews are the ones who invented these insane policies and pushed them down our throats. The Jews, despite the risks it poses to their own people, are more than willing to support Muslim fanatics against us. Take this for instance: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3814454,00.html 25
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 04:17 | # I don’t know, but I’m supposin’ 26
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 04:55 | #
GeeDoubleU, leme come again to your rescue I would go even further to add with a breeze Mordechai Vanunu is a traitor to the Jews 27
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 04:55 | # By means of the holocaust tale 28
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:30 | # Don’t hate your enemy - it’ll make you blind 29
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:11 | #
How many niggers named Tyrone and Leroy who don’t want to fuck White women can you name? 30
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:53 | # Otherwise, it is my firm belief that the West will not survive unless it somehow breaks the power of Jewry. We are not going to fix immigration or social policies while the Jewish stranglehold on the West exists. (SD) I reiterate, with emphasis: I am not a Nazi, but I also should not be misconstrued as having any particular affection for Jewry. Their presence has obviously been bad for white EGI. My past comments pertain to tactics. I continue to think (as do Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and other unimpeachable defenders of the West) that it is better for race realists to focus our very limited ammunition on the biggest problems, like ending immigration. The Jews are very well integrated into American life, as well as hegemonic in media influence. Attacking them directly is unwise, even for Nazis (assuming their ultimate goal is saving our race, and not merely venting against Jews). It is much easier to expose the problems with visibly distinctive racial aliens than to try to explain the necessity of “reframing discourses” wrt Jewry. Jewish power is not physical (except in the Middle East), but relies on control of commercial networks. If whites can recover their racial honor, I think the Jew will fall into line. If not, it will be easier, post-mass-Awakening, to deal with him. Do you grasp my point, especially in bold? How do you or anyone else propose we break the Jewish stranglehold? Obviously, that would be optimal. BUT HOW??!! I see no way, given Jewish integration (not merely cultural domination). For example, how many Swiss have Muslim friends, spouses, or valued professional colleagues or subordinates? I doubt very many. Ditto for Americans and blacks (though unfortunately these numbers are always growing, which is part of the insidiousness of the modern religion of Diversity and integration). The brute reality here in America is that many of us do have Jewish friends and professional peers whom we are unwilling to alienate by “naming the Jew”. I say this even though my Jewish friends know that I know all about Jewish liberalism, and resent it. Many Americans have overwhelmingly positive interactions with Jews; for example, a good friend of mine, whose mother had an excellent Jewish oncologist who helped her immensely, not least with emotional support, while she was diagnosed and later dying with cancer. Try to get my friend (who is a staunch, anti-immigration, anti-black crime conservative) to develop an antipathy to Jewry (and he is sufficiently awakened to know, like me, that Jews are liberal, and control the media). My argument above never seems to be appreciated by the racial right. It is a call for cunning. “Name the Jew”, and you will be “Holocausted” into censure every time. On the other hand, focus white ire on those elements of our racial dispossession that are most visible and/or unpleasant (minarets in Europe, Mexican illegals, black savages, as well as affirmative racism, cultural attacks on white heritage - the Confederate flag, the display of the Union Jack, etc), and over time, you raise the racial consciousness of whites. That is the goal, is it not? Once white consciousness has been sufficiently raised actually to deal with some of the dispossessionist outrages, by far the most important of which is ending immigration, watch how the ever-survival oriented Jew falls into line. And, if not, “naming the Jew”, and actually doing something about it (like applying ethnic quotas to media ownership), will become far more likely of success than such a strategy would be today. More guile and especially sophistication about the real state of our world today is needed on the Racial Right. 31
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:15 | #
But why not? You could at least say you are to perturb the English.
Riiiight…Nazism. Only we won’t call it that. Good plan. 32
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:15 | # I think we all agree that the overwhelming threat to white-survival is massive non-white immigration into our homelands. It is my contention this massive immigration is a result of the business community working in concert with government. Their expressed purpose or justification for doing this is to “grow the economy.” They contend there aren’t enough native born workers to fill employers’ demand therefore immigration is a MUST. Well, according to their business model or economic theory, what they say is true. However, economic growth via immigration is resulting in the dispossession (and the, probable, eventual extinction) of its native white population. So let’s assume the businessman and elected government officials are tacitly aware of the detrimental or genocidal effect massive non-white immigration will have on its native population. The question then becomes: Do they care? Well, they probable do on some level. But as we all can see, they, the ruling class, are much more concerned with maintaining and growing their wealth and power and social status than they are about saving the white race. Of course most whites are unwilling to go along with this program. So what must the ruling class do to keep the white masses from revolting? Answer: Implement a massive reeducation/brainwashing campaign designed to coercively intimidate white people into complying with the dictates of “political correctness” and “anti-racism” and other such repressive schemes. This is where the Jews enter into the process. They are main architects and enforcers of the PC and anti-racist dictates; they are naturals at these kinds of things. Moreover, they are MORE than happy to fill this role. So are the Euro feminazis, but I digress… To put it in simple terms: Corporate Charlie and Government Nanny (mainly Whites) hire Socialist Sammy (mainly Jews) to do the dirty work of suppressing white dissent. Tim Wise is a perfect example of this. White owned and or operated corporations pay him thousands per day to conduct diversity training classes. Another example of how jews are paid to keep whites in their place is Barbara Spectre in Sweden. She is being funded by the Swedish Government—repeat, FUNDED BY THE SWEDISH GOVERNMENT to “educate” the Swedes on how to transition from an all white country to a multiracial one. I could give many more examples but I think ya’ll get my drift. Bottom line: In the ongoing saga of white-genocide, Jews are playing a secondary role. Business and economic concerns are the star actors. 33
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:35 | # Military Police Service Copy Circular Letter No. 31/48 Vienna, 1 Oct. 1948 10th dispatch 1. The Allied Commissions of Inquiry have so far established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its satellite camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstadt. In those cases, it has been possible to prove that confessions had been extracted by tortures and that testimonies were false. This must be taken into account when conducting investigations and interrogations with respect to war crimes. The result of this investigation should be brought to the cognizance of former concentration camp inmates who at the time of the hearings testified on the murder of people, especially Jews, with poison gas in those concentration camps. Should they insist on their statements, charges are to be brought against them for making false statements. 2. In the C.L. (Circular Letter) 15/48, item 1 is to be deleted. The Head of the MPS Müller, Major” Certified true copy: Lachout, Second Lieutenant 35
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:12 | # Jimmy wrote:“Instead, they [Jews] think of themselves merely as uniquely human, which automatically imputes sub-human status to other races, and makes them deserving of eradication through genetic homogenization.” Oh yeah!!! Well I think Jews are of their father, Satan, and are going to Hell after they assume room temperature. Heh There, now we’re even! Or as the song goes: “But don’t ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answers that you want me to. Oh well…..” 36
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:12 | # Leon, You seem to have two main points. One, we can’t act against the Jews because they are too ‘integrated’ into White society. People have Jewish friends, etc. Two, the Jews will inevitably “fall into line” once Nationalists/Racial-Rightists/etc gain enough influence. The first point can be responded to by noting that there are far more non-whites than Jews, and there are far more white people with non-white friends than with Jewish friends. So, you’d alienate more people by pursuing Jew-friendly race-realism against the non-whites than forming an anti-semitic rainbow coalition. (Not that I necessarily advocate the latter…) Regarding the second point, I have no idea why absolutely anyone would believe that the Jews are capable of “falling into line.” The United States and South Africa are excellent examples of nations where the Jews enjoyed all privileges of the dominant culture without being asked to give up their own identity. Yet, in both instances they led the charge against Whites. The entire history of Jewry is the history of subversion. They are the “ferment of decomposition.” I think this is the theme of E. Michael Jones book, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And its Impact on World History.” (I confess to only skimming this work - it’s well over a thousand pages. Jones seems to think that their subversive nature lay in their rejection of Christ.)
This idea sounds good but displays a lack of understanding of the question. In my above post I linked to a news article detailing how European Rabbis supported the Muslims during the Swiss minaret controversy. Even if Whites are a minority, like in South Africa, the Jews have always undermined us. I can’t explain their motives, but I don’t have to. All I have to know is that Jews have always acted a certain way and presumably always will. Whether this is calculated strategy or psychological urge I have no idea.
We approach this problem the same way we should be approaching non-white crime and race-replacement: by taking our ideas straight to the population, by distributing literature and ‘propaganda’, and by encouraging the formation of independent local groups. Thorn,
If businesses were truly as powerful and revolutionary (this being the key part of your argument), then the United States government would be more forceful against the Jews (Israel Lobby) and less so against business. That isn’t the case. The U.S. has pushed trust busting, regulation, immigration laws, New Deals, etc - against the wishes of Big Business. It has never done anything significant against Israel or their lobby in the United States. Bill Gates may be in favor of more H1B visas but it was a Jewess who called the white race “the cancer of history.” Criticize business and you’re a populist, criticize the Jews and you’re a Nazi. (Critical thinking exercise: What effect does power structure have upon acceptable discourse?) When the American people wanted to exclude Chinese from immigrating to America the businesses protested but the people won out. After the Jews had saturated our universities, businesses, and media outlets, Americans have been forced to endure one unpopular policy after another. On page 146 of Benjamin Ginsburg’s “The Fatal Embrace” he notes that half of the “freedom riders” spreading 1960s “racial equality” in the American South were Jewish. (I think this is also mentioned in Howard Sachar’s “A History of the Jews in America”.) Were these Jews on a corporate payroll? Another hole in your contention is that the government pushes affirmative action, race replacement, etc against businesses even when it hurts businesses. If businesses were running the puppet-show, why would they demand legislation that inhibited their ability to run efficiently? As a final thought, I will note that most people who think our current decline is the result of “liberalism” or “big business” or a number of intangible or poorly defined things usually have not done their homework. They oppose a “monocausal” explanation because it offends their pseudo-intellectual outlook. (Thinking without learning is dangerous - Confucious) 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:39 | # Sam, In Europe, because of the citing of WW2 on our soil, we are more advanced in the process of de-sovereignisation of the nation state than anywhere else on the planet. The European Union, as it is now termed, has reached the stage where it is demanding fiscal control over member states, to accompany the other “harmonisations” underway in (in, for example, foreign policy, police and security, military - there are many). Control of immigration policy has also been mooted by the beast. It is not run by Jews. It is run by unelected failed politicians, bureaucrats, and heads of state. Its first loyalty is to the globalisation process. How does this fit with your monocausal explanation? 38
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:45 | #
I find this especially despicable in light of the sacrifices endured by patriotic scholars who have risked their freedom and livelihoods to provide us with relevant study materials.
39
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:23 | #
Not that I entirely support Sam’s position, however, it does work well if you adopt Foucault’s notion of Bentham’s Panopticon on a global level.
40
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:49 | #
First, by phrasing your question in such a way you have implied that I make the facts fit my hypothesis. This isn’t true. I used to share Thorn’s opinion that big business was driving these changes, but I had to abandon that idea after accumulating more evidence. Second, I don’t know every detail of what goes on in Europe, and I have urged Europeans, at least twice on this site, to investigate these problems more closely. However, from time to time there are pieces of evidence that fall into my hands. It is a fact, for instance, that one can be sent to prison in Europe for disagreeing with Jews or their view of the world. (Most prominently, the Holocaust.) Can you name anyone in Europe who has gone to prison for writing something critical about Big Business? What about liberalism? Has anyone been forced to drink hemlock for writing a scathing philosophical treatise?
How can one be loyal to a process? 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 01:22 | # Sam, We had a poster here a few years ago who dug up some forecasts for the America of the future made by progressives in the immediate aftermath of the civil war. I looked for one particular article but couldn’t locate it, however this article stated that the people of the American future will be an amalgam of all the peoples of the world living lives of unimaginable technological advancement, and this shall be the model for everywhere else. It was a most modern prediction. But these progressives were not Jewish, nor were they even Marxists. The idea of globality is old, and it is not only a Jewish idea. It is as particular to the warp and weft of liberalism as elitism is, as equality, brotherhood and social justice are, and as the unfettered will is.
Because that is what their political careers are devoted to. None of this political generation will live to see the Globality, and they likely don’t even think about it as more than the general political, economic, legal and social dynamic of our time. 42
Posted by Armor on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:06 | # Sam: “However, from time to time there are pieces of evidence that fall into my hands.” Another piece of evidence :
43
Posted by Armor on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:31 | # Sam: “I have urged Europeans, at least twice on this site, to investigate these problems more closely.” Some investigating would be useful, but a lot of Jewish activism takes place more or less openly. I find most of my information on the subject on Anne Kling’s blog . It’s called “France Licratisée”. Licratisée means licra-tized. LICRA is the name of a Jewish “anti-racist” organization in France. A.Kling is the author of three books in French: “La France Licratisée”, “Jewish Revolutionaries”, and the third one was published last year: “The CRIF, a lobby at the heart of the Republic”. The CRIF is the biggest Jewish organization in France. It is a federation of smaller Jewish organizations. Both the LICRA and the CRIF have close links with the French government. A lot of Kling’s information comes directly from the CRIF, the LICRA, and the Jewish press in general. Ten years ago, at the instigation of the LICRA, she was prosecuted by the government for seeing a link between immigration and violence. That is how she became interested in the LICRA and in Jewish activism. For example, here is an interesting post she published last week, with the title “No comment !”
From the same website, another interesting post published this week :
I think the phony EU parliament should not exist, as it doesn’t have any real power. In any case, the MEPs have nothing to do in Israel. 44
Posted by Armor on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:52 | # Last year, the same website gave a series of short presentations of pro-Israel organizations lobbying around the EU and French institutions. (French Version - Google Translation). The first on the list was “European Friends of Israel” (wiki) A few excerpts from Kling’s blog :
— </blockquote> And there are a number of similar Jewish organizations based around Paris and Brussels. I think that Guessedworker underestimates their effectiveness. 45
Posted by Armor on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 07:16 | # Anne Kling lists several other Jewish pressure groups. My favorite one is the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, also called the FRA. In 2005, there was a referendum in France to accept or reject the new EU constitution. Most people voted NO, but the EU went along with it anyway. Personally, I voted NO because I had read the document on the internet. I noticed that the description of the so-called “fundamental rights” took a huge part of the document, and it was mostly about the rights of third-worlders to be considered as full EU citizens. It also said something against discrimination against unusual sexual preferences. In fact, it was the usual anti-white human-rights garbage. I now suspect that that garbage was directly inspired by the CRIF. Here’s Kling’s article about the FRA. (French version - Google Translation)
Armor’s final word: And this is how, thanks to the EU, the French CRIF is dictating the law in GW’s England. 46
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:07 | # GW wrote: “The idea of globality is old, and it is not only a Jewish idea. It is as particular to the warp and weft of liberalism as elitism is, as equality, brotherhood and social justice are, and as the unfettered will is.” Indeed! To provide a modern day example of this, one not need to look futher than former U.S. President George W Bush. “Georgie of Arabia” is a globalist through and through. He doesn’t give a flying fig about saving the white race. In fact, he and his type are vehemently opposed to whites organising for the purpose of promoting their own EGI. He knows if that event were ever to occur, their globalist business model/political agenda would be stymied. Immigration of non-whites are an integral part of the globalists’ business model. Hence, if whites, en masse, were to ever again assert themselves, then non-white immigration into the U.S. would come to a screeching halt. White advocacy groups have the real potential of changing the dynamics of American politics and immigration policies. Georgie “the compassionate conservative” Bush and his fellow travelers of checked-pants, blue-blooded, country-club Republicans faces blanch at the very thought of a halt on immigration. That’s why these fecal breathed ruling class WASPs are working VERY hard to prevent a popular uprising; an uprising spurred on by white advocacy groups. They use every trick in the book—including the full force of the government. corporate owned media (MSM), and employing Jewish legal hit groups such as the ACLU, SPLC, ADL, etc.—to thwart every attempt by any white organization who so much as hints at promoting white-solidarity. We all know this. Holding on to their wealth, power, and social status is what’s important to them—globalisation is key to that. Allowing us silly white proles to form a movement whose expressed purpose is preventing our own dispossession and eventual extinction gets in their way, therefore, it is deemed verboten. Here is Georgie Bush in his own words (Note: So as to not waste time, advance to the 37 minute mark. The relevant part lasts only about 3 minutes) : http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AwithFo P.S. Gordon Brown was recently featured on C-Span too. His message was, in essence, almost identical to Dubya’s. Coincidence? Of course not. The Western leaders have agreed on a globalist agenda. If the process of implementing that agenda comes at the expense of the white-race’s dispossession, so be it. That’s THEIR attitude anyway. Sam, Latter on I’ll give a more detailed opinion as to why I no longer think Jews are the MAIN drivers or orchestrator’s of white dispossession (But that could change again due to the fact the world is constantly changing. I.e., my worldview isn’t chiseled in granite). Of course Jewish Supremacists play a huge role in our demise. Their power and influence in all aspects of the Western world is vastly disproportionate to their tiny percentage of the population.. there is no denying that. But I reject the notion they are THE sole cause (part of the main cause? yes. the sole cause?no.). They certainly are working towards being in charge. But they’re not in control…they don’t call all the shots…not yet anyway…. 47
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:41 | # Thanks for the information, Armor. The bit about Jean Kahn is very reminiscent of the Jewish individuals who created the NAACP in America. (At one point they gave out a “Spingarn Medal”, named after the NAACP Chairman Joel Spingarn. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spingarn_Medal )
That’s true. I get most of my information from Jewish sources. The problem is that one has to know where to look. I don’t read French, so I would have probably not found Anne Kling’s website. Plus, it’s very difficult to look inside another country and try to understand the social interactions. It’s difficult to do this even in one’s own country. GuessedWorker,
Great, you can reference one group promoting multiracialism from a non-Jewish source, but cannot even find this reference! Even if there have been non-Jewish individuals promoting goals that dovetail with our current problems, this in no way disproves the idea that Jews have been the main force behind our current racial problems.
I agree that most people do not think and do not create ideas. So, if there is a tremendous shift in ideas - who set the ball rolling? Who makes sure it continues? That is what I am pursuing. These European bureaucrats are obeying a doctrine that has been passed down from the mountain. Who is on the mountaintop? Who has made it profitable or desirable for them to become anti-racist speakers, to publish anti-nationalist articles and newspapers, etc? On this subject I do not have exact knowledge, only hypotheses. Hopefully someone will be able to give us a good answer. As I stated in another thread, the important fact is not who directly controls what but who sets the tone for what one can do? As I mentioned in the Liberals and obedience thread, In 2009 a newspaper in Virginia printed a description of a criminal without giving his race. Upon being contacted by a reader they informed him that, as per the Associated Press Stylebook, they never mention race unless it is absolutely essential to the story. This defence - an appeal to authority - proves your first point to be quite insightful. The editor of the AP Stylebook is Norm Goldstein. Ideas do not create men. Men create ideas. Liberalism, globality, racial equality - these were all ideas created and pushed forward by certain people, although not necessarily the same people. Thorn is halfway to the answer because he understands that today’s dominant paradigm is pursued by someone for some purpose. Thorn,
Take a step back and think about what you’re saying. You are asserting that Big Business has been engaged in a massive conspiracy to break the power of white racial groups in order to further their plan of globalization. This is a huge claim! Do you have any proof of this? Can you show me where the WASP overlords hired the NAACP or SPLC? Can you show me how the WASP business elite funded anti-racist groups? (Keep in mind, you’d need to show how this was happening on a large scale BEFORE our society became anti-racist. Today this is merely following the herd and avoiding getting sued.) I have my own criticisms of the business class, mostly for their spinelessness and opportunism, but I have never been able to find proof that they kicked off this great transformation of the West. On the other hand, there exists tremendous evidence that the Jews played a main role in our decline. Go look at the founders of the NAACP - overwhelmingly Jewish. Go look at who was pushing cases into the court system about integrating American schools - tons of Jews. The famous court case Brown v. Board was notable for using the “research” that proved that black girls preferred white dolls because the school system had made them internalize “racism” against blacks. Guess who funded this study? The American Jewish Committee. Following the Civil Rights legislation passed by President Johnson in the early 1960s, a wave of black criminality and rioting swept the nation. He appointed the Kerner Commission under executive director David Ginsburg to investigate. Guess what the commission found? The black rioting were caused by white racism! Unbelievable. Now, the interesting thing is that this was not an entirely American affair. The Jews have played the exact same role in other Western countries. Armor has given information about France. I am working on a large study of this regarding South Africa. The first half of this piece has some introductory material: http://eternalforms.angelfire.com/jews1.html 48
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:43 | # Apologies for the broken italics tag.</i> I have fixed it myself. <— 49
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:14 | #
National Socialist Germany provides empirical proof of what can happen when Jews are removed from power. 50
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:29 | # GW, Surely you are not inferring that Jews were not key players in the wake of the American Civil War. In this respect, I can sympathize with your frustration in being unable to find old sources. I’m sure that I have seen references to a letter from Ulysses Grant to Abraham Lincoln requesting that he halt the flow of carpetbagger Jews into the south toward the end of the war. If I remember correctly, Lincoln made an effort to comply, but was quickly lobbied into reversal. 51
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:30 | #
Sam, I am asserting the ‘ruling class’ or globalists or big business or whatever term fits (as exemplified by the “House of Bush”, Gordon Brown, et al….), is actively engaged in an ongoing effort to squelch any power that white racial groups might attain. As of now, white racial groups have NO power whatsoever. Zip Zero Nada. Isn’t that proof positive that the ‘ruling class’ has things well under control? Secondly, I’m contending that attacking Jews is probably the worst PR strategy we can engage in. Maybe in the future, when we gain popular support, then “Naming the Jew” might be indicated - but not now. 52
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:47 | # What I do is try to persuade our white brothers and sisters to abandon their self sacrifice tendencies and encourage them to adopt a more self preservationist oriented worldview. That tact or approach works fairly well. 53
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:15 | #
Or is it the reverse? Bush is to the ADL et al as Margaret Meade was to Franz Boas. She was simply carrying his water. For it was not Meade that established the Boasian discourse.
This statement can be accepted as valid, however, the problem is that it assumes an unassailed discourse that eventually led, unbroken, to the 21st century. Clearly, it was not the case. The Grantian WASPs, the Boston Brahims, stood against the progressiveness outlined post-Civil War, fighting long and hard to reverse and repatriate. Clearly the anti-discrimination discourse that arose with Boas and then was further fueled by WWII was not exclusively but predominantly of Jewish origin. Critical theory, from the Frankfurt School, was simply a discourse that grew from the critique of knowledge and power. If the concern is naming the Jew, use Beck’s example and critique the discourse and the panoptic dream that permeates it. The Jews will self-identify. 54
Posted by Guest on Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:38 | # It has built and built and now it does appear that even the USA will have “hate speech” laws as that is Kagan and Breyer and Guinsberg and Sotomayor’s policy. Revisionist Victims of the New Inquistion One victim of the Inquisition Germar Rudolf his crime? Writing this book. Professor Arthur Butz was treated to the full force of hate by the Judaic crowd at Northwestern University, his SIN? He wrote this book. Look what happened to the “Heretical Two” they had several revisionist articles on their website. The OPPRESSION of intellectual freedom that the Holohoax has imposed on the West has stifled all that is healthy in academe and amongst the populace that THINKS. 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:59 | # Jimmy, Thanks for the sympathy. I’ve just been through the blog again looking for Alex’s first guest post, which is what this was. But I’m damned if I can see it. However, the point holds. The human force propelling us as a race towards extinction is plural not singular, and the one that is native to us has its arising, in my honest opinion, in the way that radical individualism and universalism - the wings of liberalism that are normally considered never quite reconciled - actually synthesise in the person of the Western elitist. That is to say, he is freed from external constraint to do what he wants, and what he wants is to compete altruistically, to heal Mankind as a token of his power and consequence, and to leave his mark as a creator not simply of a New Man in the sense that term is usually applied, but of a new human life on earth. Man the Creator is the logical end product of liberalism, and that end is the Western elite. And this isn’t something particular to our time. It has been so for a very long time indeed. Go back to the Whig Party and you find aristocracy and vast wealth allied to a high-minded politics of Reform (the Tories, of course, were the party of the merchant class and the middle-class). For Jews, who are never true liberals, and who believe in their very marrow that they are the elite, everything is laid out in their eschatology. To the extent that Jews are obviously the cause to so many WNs, we are drawn to focus too hard on them. It’s difficult not to. They go about it so bloody obviously. We see so many of them pursuing the same deconstructive ends. They never disappoint. We do not learn anything new about them. But our own believers in a godlike supremacy we tend to write off as “bought by Jews” or “closet Marxists” or “corrupted by power”. They are none of those things. They are the products of liberalism, and they could not be other than they are. 56
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 01:03 | #
So Bush and Brown funded the NAACP and freedom riders? Or, is someone else funding them? Jews responsible for 60% of Democratic Party, 20% of Republican Party funding: Israeli billionaire Saban biggest donor to US politicians Chief fundraiser for the U.K.‘s Labour Party and “Tony Blair’s personal envoy to the Middle East” Michael Levy: Whose war? Pat Buchanan’s exposure of the Jewish war-hawks:
How are we going to gain political support without neutralizing Jewish influence? I admit there’s no easy answer to this question - but one doesn’t solve a problem by ignoring it. 57
Posted by Ivan on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 01:30 | # Hosni Mubarak seems off the back of his horse 58
Posted by Ivan on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:41 | # The US President is backing Hosni Mubarak 59
Posted by Armor on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:20 | # Jimmy Marr: “National Socialist Germany provides empirical proof of what can happen when Jews are removed from power.” Conversely, 1945 provides empirical proof of what happens when Jews are allowed to reclaim their former positions and resume their cooperation with the government, while right-wing intellectuals are purged from national life. From 1945 to the present day, Jewish and leftist activists have simply continued hiring more and more of their friends in the French media and universities. The right was never able to re-establish its position. An excerpt from K.MacDonald’s foreword to Tom Sunic’s book Homo Americanus (2007) :
What Sunic and MacDonald say is probably true. For example, I think if there had not been a purge in 1945, and if the institutions had not gradually been infiltrated, not much would have come out of the May 1968 street protests in France. On the other hand, I don’t know what happened in Britain. Did a purge of the British right take place during WWII? In any case, Enoch Powell was harshly criticized for taking position against race replacement in 1968. Guessedworker: “the warp and weft of liberalism…” The problem is not liberalism, but censorship and intimidation of the majority by a minority. Even normal people are afraid to be frank when they talk to one another at the pub. That’s why they start sentences with “I’m not racist, but…”. They feel the pressure. Fear and conformism increase as you go up in the hierarchy, especially on the liberal side. Most politicians are terrified of saying something politically incorrect. Their political attitudes derive from fear, and do not reflect their natural opinions. Someone like George Bush may seem completely brainwashed, as if he really believed in the moral necessity of race replacement. But I think people like him are simply going along with the flow. The whole system relies on conformity and fear. At the same time, Jewish politicians and journalists have motivations of their own, as they do not see themselves as members of our group. Their role is crucial in instilling fear. Anti-replacement activists are primarily hounded by Jewish groups. They are defamed by the Jewish media and by Jewish activists. In France, they are prosecuted at the request of Jewish “anti-racist” organizations, and have to pay them compensation. 60
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:59 | #
Sam, For quite awhile now, the vast majority of the funding for the NAACP comes from large corporations and foundations such as the ATT Foundation, Bell Atlantic Foundation and the Ford Foundation, etc. Also, the bulk of the funding for the two major parties’ candidates comes from large corporations. For example: Here is the list of the biggest donors to the Obama 2008 prsidential campaign: University of California $1,591,395 _________________________________ McCain’s top contributors: 61
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:08 | # Thorn,
That’s probably true - but I had already anticipated this point in an earlier post: Can you show me how the WASP business elite funded anti-racist groups? (Keep in mind, you’d need to show how this was happening on a large scale BEFORE our society became anti-racist. Today this is merely following the herd and avoiding getting sued.)
Alot of these have Jewish CEOs or were founded by Jews. This is mostly off the top of my head… Goldman Sachs $994,795 Harvard University $854,747 Google Inc $803,436 Citigroup Inc $701,290 Time Warner $590,084 Stanford University $586,557 Lehman Brothers $114,357 62
Posted by Armor on Fri, 04 Feb 2011 23:56 | # Whether or not today’s soft dictatorship is Jewish, our enemies hold power through their grip on the institutions, not through the popularity of liberalism among the elites. It works like this : 1. They hold the power (like Mubarak in Egypt, or Napoleon in France) 2. They force their so-called liberalism, aka race-replacement, on us. — 63
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:15 | #
No. The power they wield is derived from discourse and is not episodic or sovereign in nature. It is not acts of domination or coercion. It is pervasive. It is everywhere and comes from everywhere. It is neither an agency nor a structure. It is a ‘regime of truth’ that pervades society, and which is in constant flux and negotiation. As in mathematics, this power is an operator, “an action or procedure which produces a new value from one or more input values” rather than an effort to dominate or coerce in the sense of a sovereign. Foucault’s definition of discourse is better. It is “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak.” 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:05 | # Armor, You do not grasp what I am saying. It isn’t that liberalism is something which people ascribe to, like support for a football team. It is that it colours and to a certain, quite significant extent is the formative system of truths, values, attitudes and thinking which form human personality. We are liberalism. Our priests - public intellectuals - have been telling us at least since 1870 what kind of human personality would be created in the future. The Church heirarchy is delivering us to that estate. They may be doing it for their own advantage - and that is an evil thing, to be sure - but what they are doing is wholly in accord with the creed itself. If you miss this question of psychology, you cannot evaluate the importance of Desmond’s last statement, and you certainly can’t understand the centrality of systemic philosophy to the formation of personality. 65
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:37 | # Better yet, liberalism is “a world view which directs thought into channels which tend to confirm, reinforce and build upon itself.” My formulation, not Foucault’s. I prefer an operationalized definition. 66
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:48 | #
Ever notice that probably around 90% of the content of what most people talk about is confined to their emotional and sensual responses to mundane physical stimuli they encounter in their daily lives? Basically cows chewing their cud and remarking on how good that cud tastes. No wonder the Jews have such an easy go of it. No wonder literary types feel the inclination to spice up racialism with a little palingenesis. 67
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 15:50 | #
Sam, In the 1960s WASP led government and business community were faced with a nationwide internal threat of a hostile and revolting black community. These “disgruntled” blacks were rioting, burning down whole neighborhoods and businesses.. and threatening to kill whitey. In numerous large cities, they were, in effect, bringing commerce and business activity to a virtual halt; which in turn, impacted negatively on the nation’s economy as a whole. Militant black individuals and organizations (yes, I know jewish instigators inserted themselves in the center of it.) vowed to continue the mayhem unless their demands were met. What to do? Well, at that time, government working in concert with business leaders did a cost benefit analysis and decided the best course of action for the immediate future would be to meet the extortionists’ demands. Ergo, we now have government funded and enforced racial integration of schools and neighborhoods, affirmative action in hiring and college admissions, special government loan set asides for “minority businesses”, civil rights laws designed to protect everyone but whites, omnipresent diversity training, etc. etc. etc. In short, the “anti-racist” environment we whites must labor under is due in large part (But not solely. Obviously Jewish evolutionary strategies play a VERY significant/central role in the mix) to the our “fearless” “sagacious” WASP leaders who, under pressure, bent to the will of the extortionists. In essence, it was a business decision made in haste. In their rush to tamp down an immediate threat/problem our country was facing, they unwittingly(?) created a larger problem. Their short-sighted fix has evolved into many malignant cancers. Can the cancers be removed or at least made to be benign? 68
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:26 | # Thorn, Sam is the type who tends to apply an analytic template (MacDonald’s in this case) in a rigid manner that tends to thwart the possibility of any incite which falls outside that template. He does this all with a palpable, yet muted sense of superiority. Perhaps he should consider that missing the forest because of the trees is nothing to feel smug about. Question: If the Jews did not exist, had never existed, and with enough rolls of the historical dice, would our own European elites have betrayed us in the manner that they do today? Probably so, in my opinion. (Maybe I should just change my pseudonym to “Woodshed”, because that’s where I take people.) 69
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:50 | #
The elites of today are bought men from the lower strata of the European populace elevated beyond their natural stature in life by the power of money. Historically, Europe was ruled by an aristocracy. Despite their occasional association with Jews they never betrayed our civilization the way that the grasping, low caste, faux elites of today do. I do not believe that in the case that the aristocracy had been left intact, that it would have resulted in the same scenario we face today. But, on the other hand, the Age of Enlightenment and the casting down of the aristocracy could have happened without Jews. Indeed, the French and American revolutions were hardly the work of the self-chosen. Perhaps what you are getting at is that there are unresolved class tensions in European civilization which need addressing just as much as the Culture of Critique and sundry other distortions of hostile outsiders. 70
Posted by Woodshed on Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:46 | #
But “lower strata” in what context? In a modern technological-industrial society high IQ is the key to the gate of elite status.
Richard “the Lionheart”, king of England, led a crusade to conquer territory superfluous to his ethny, and funded said with ruinous taxation of his own people. Why? For his own vanity. Not the kinda guy who would pursue race-replacement in another era if it suited him? Get real.
The Roman elite expanded their empire for their own gain, funneling wogs into Italy that their people eventually mixed with. Some ‘loyalty’. 72
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:21 | # Thorn,
Racial integration gained force in the 1950s. The race riots did not become a national problem until a decade later with the passing of Civil Rights legislation. This is when the businesses had to cut their losses and simply appease whatever legal pressure applied to them. The decision against racial segregation in Brown v. Board occurred in 1954. The research backing it up, the infamous “doll study” showing that black girls preferred to play with white dolls due to internalized discrimination, was commissioned by the American Jewish Committee. Clark’s work for the NAACP played a major role in the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education, which declared school segregation unconstitutional. In his testimony in several of the trials and in the social science brief submitted to the Court, Clark and his colleagues argued that segregation tended to create in black children feelings of inferiority, self-rejection, and loss of self-esteem which affected negatively their ability to learn. Of course, all the earlier scientific work advocating “scientific racism” was to be discarded. Jewish “scientists” like Boas worked hard to prove these ideas wrong. I must now speculate how many of the Supreme Court judges at the time of this ruling relied upon Jewish aides or assistants for their research. Jerome Karabel’s book The Chosen notes how 20-30% of Harvard’s student body was Jewish by the 1930s. The number of those graduates who went on to become lawyers or aides must have been considerable, significantly weighing upon the results of judicial rulings in later decades.
If I’m wrong about Jews being the main cause of our racial decline, I would like to see solid evidence, rather than mere conjecture. The people who tend to deny critical Jewish influence are often themselves Jewish. See: 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:00 | #
Islam is “a world view which directs thought into channels which tend to confirm, reinforce and build upon itself.” It’s not the issue. Universalism, the Jewish led perversion of liberalism (classical Liberalism) is no different. The issue is what reciprocal effects of power and knowledge they ensure. 74
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:32 | #
No one is denying Jewish influence, at least I’m not. I and others are saying they aren’t the only force causing our demise. I only wish that were true. If so, then our fight would be much simpler and clear cut - (Us v Them, the Jews). But that’s not the case. Jews are only one of the many enemies and battles we confront. I used to think “liberalism” was what was causing our demise until I read David Duke’s books and KMac’s CoC. Then, O BOY! ALL the pieces started to fall into place (or so I thought). As the pieces fell into place, it formed the picture of the Jew. Sam, I couldn’t watch TV without looking for clues and evidence to support my theory that Jews controlled every aspect of the Western Man’s being. I over analyzed the subtexts of movies searching for any anti-Euro-Christian message. At the end of movies/programs I’d count out loud the Jews named in the credits…. GOLDFARB…FINK…STEINBERG…HOROWITZ….SACHS…ROTHSTEIN…FELDBAUM…. And the news shows on TV? Fugettaboutit! I use to drive everyone crazy. I’d shout: LOOK AT THAT PANEL OF “EXPERTS”! OUT OF THE SIX, IT’S THREE JEWS, A NEGRO, a FEMINAZI, AND A PRO-ISRAEL CONSERVATIVE WHITE GUY! SEE! SEE! WHATS THE CHANCE 50% OF THE PANEL WOULD BE JEWS IF THEY MAKE-UP ONLY TWO PERCENT OF THE POPULATION IF NOT FOR THE FACT JEWS CONTROL OR INFLUENCE EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY?!? It got to the point where no one would watch TV with me anymore; can’t say I blame them. HEH!
Do you get my point? That is all I’m trying to get you to consider, Sam. Try and be open to other explanations/reasons why the white race is facing extinction. Our battle to survive is against a much larger complicated force than Jews and Jewish tools. Jewish Supremacists or organized Jewery or Jewish evolutionary strategies are very toxic for sure, but Jews are only an integral part of the enemy we face. Not the whole. At least think about it. 75
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 18:35 | # Excellent posts from the Narrator: http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2011/02/all-will-bow-to-image-of-beast.html 76
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 18:40 | #
I agree with this statement. 77
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 19:34 | #
Of course, but no other aspect is more taboo in public discourse, which puts this issue at ground zero. PS: Knock it off, GW. My Captcha is “88 alone”. 79
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:11 | # The harder we hit them, the weaker we get and the stronger they become. Now what? 80
Posted by Armor on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:57 | # Sam: “I will note that most people who think our current decline is the result of “liberalism” or “big business” or a number of intangible or poorly defined things usually have not done their homework. They oppose a “monocausal” explanation because it offends their pseudo-intellectual outlook.” For most people who haven’t done their homework, one book about the JP would be enough to wise them up (which one, I don’t know). I think they oppose a “monocausal” explanation for two reasons : Personally, I believe that : If some people refuse to hear anything about Jewish activism, it’s still useful to encourage them to focus their attention on anti-white activism, and not so much on abstract considerations. If you believe there is a problem with white people and the Zeitgeist, it is demoralizing, you feel helpless to change things. But if you realize that race-replacement activists are not entirely ineffective at their job, it becomes easier to think up counter-activist strategies. 81
Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 08:53 | # Perhaps some here on this thread will be interested in this. What is American Corporatism? By Robert Locke. 2002 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1144682/posts I came across it just the other day and it reminded of this thread. As an aside, I used to read everything this author put out on the net, but as others have remarked, Robert Locke suddenly disappeared from the scene. IMO he is a classic and very knowledgeable writer. Anyone out there heard of his whereabouts? 82
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:58 | #
Excellent essay! Corporatism is one of those pieces that didn’t quite fit into the monocausal picture puzzle I spoke of. But I suspect the very imaginative monocausalists here at MR will “do their homework” and hence explain to the ill-informed dupes exactly how the Jews invented, implemented, and now control all the levers of corporatism. 83
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:40 | # Besides trying to sell their product, what sort of racial message is the Pepsi Corporation trying to send with this ad? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVQrH0aHGAc&feature=player_embedded 84
Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:02 | # Here’s another such essay which I stumbled across three years ago or so. Perhaps it’s not quite in the same vein but near enough. This author has done his homework (where do they find it?) The title is Liberal democracy vs Transnational Progressivism by John Fonte 2002. If I were to describe it I would call it a glimpse into the future which we can already see. I have referenced it here before, but it will stand another airing. http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/transnational_progressivism.pdf When I read such an article my mind glazes over at the complicity and depth of the rabbit hole. This futurism has been in the making for generations, some having spent their whole lives beavering away only to shuffle off this mortal coil not seeing their work any nearer fruition - and the baton passes on. Core beliefs of this view include:
Please note text within quotes is from another document (below) 85
Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:24 | # Interestingly, in the course of compiling above post I stumbled upon this piece over at The Brussels Journal. 2007. It is written by distinguished blogger Fjordman (I know, I know, don’t shoot the messenger) whose article ‘The Great Conversation’ is linked from the essay in above comment. 07.02 PM. Here it is. The Great Conversation. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2140 All grist to the mill. 86
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:21 | #
I refuse to compromise my academic integrity - even for an anonymous stranger on the internet. James Bowery kill me. 87
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:23 | #
That crucial omission has now doomed me for certain! 88
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:32 | #
They do not need to control all the levers. They simply need to control the discourse.
89
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:18 | # Taking into consideration that Majorityrights’ folks are thoughtful readers with an I.Q. above average, I want to suggest the following mathematical puzzle I dubbed The Holocaust Problem: From Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939 to the liberation of Nazi concentration camps at the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, about 2000 days had passed. In the course of that period of time, according to the Jewish sources, 6000000 Jews have been burned in gas chambers. Using only those two pieces of information, estimate Gmax - the maximum killing capacity of gas chambers per day. Simple logical analysis yields the following wide, but clear brackets: 3000 < Gmax < 6000000. Indeed, if all Jews were killed in one single day, then we have Gmax=6000000; the other extreme, i.e. assuming that absolutely the same count of Jews have been put to death every day, suggests Gmax=3000. Of course, common sense tells us right away that these two limiting cases are extremely unlikely. Obviously, Gmax is somewhere between those two boundaries. Laplace, the 19th century great French mathematician once famously said: Probability theory is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation. Using your common sense and whatever knowledge of theory of probability you have, give your best estimate for Gmax. I have already done my calculations, but I won’t reveal my best Gmax estimate until I hear from the readers. 90
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 02:11 | # Ivan, Your sums may need adjusting. The official narrative states that about one million Jews were murdered in general pogroms and whatever between September 1939 and the commencement of Operation Reinhard in Summer 1942. The five million were, of course, mostly gassed over the next two and a half-years, notwithstanding the fact that Madenek was liberated in July 44. Therienstadt was the last to be liberated in May 45. So, averaging things out, the live part of the equation is 5 million over 30 months with the capacity reducing greatly over the last six months and kind of shifted into the last half of 44 to make up for the early losses. So the G Max for the period of maximum lethality would quite likely have to exceed 6000. How possible is that? How many ovens were operating? How long was required for each body to incinerate, allowing for downtime? 91
Posted by Armor on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 02:43 | # DJ: “They simply need to control the discourse.” More exactly, they need to shut us up. It is simply a matter of censorship. In fact, the brainwashing doesn’t work. No one believes it’s good for the Whites to be replaced by non-Whites. It’s like in Andersen’s tale, The New Clothes of the Emperor: every one can see that the Emperor wears no clothes, but people behave as if they were mystified. It takes a little kid to cry out that the Emperor is naked. The job of the media is to shut us up. It is probably the absence of free speech in the media that makes collective action difficult. I think the race-replacers control the government by other means than the media, mainly through their lobbying. By refusing to give coverage to third-party candidates, the media largely decide who can be elected to office. But they need not convince their readers that more immigration is needed. They only need to prevent the use of the media by the anti-immigration movement. **
92
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 04:46 | #
GW, You have a lovely and beautiful mind. The only thing you have missed in the statement of The Holocaust Problem is this:
Theory of probability is no less exact science than physics or mathematics, and it does not tolerate frivolity and inaccuracy. Nevertheless, I am glad that you have violated the rules of scientific engagement, because it gives me a marvelous opportunity to demonstrate the power of theory of probability which, according to Edwin Jaynes - the author of Probability Theory The Logic of Science, Cambridge University Press, 2003 , is nothing but an extension of the ordinary two-valued (true-false) logic. Please pay attention that I am not disputing the validity of the extra information you have used to arrive to your estimate of Gmax >= 6000 that has amazingly coincided with my own. Here is the exact mathematical solution of the original Holocaust Problem. I have to emphasize again: it is extremely important not to use any extra information, except the two pieces of information given in the statement of the problem plus impeccable logical honesty - remember this is a mathematical problem. Logical honesty means that we shall not make any assumptions not guarantied by the information given in the statement of the problem or use any extra historical information (no matter how accurate that information might be). If all gas chambers combined have the capacity to kill Gmax people per day, they can kill any count of people less than Gmax, including 0. That means, if we wish to remain logically honest and consistent, we must admit that the probability P(X) of killing exactly X must have a non-zero value, i.e. we potentially can have exactly X people put to death every day, as long as X =< Gmax (for X=0, that means no one killed for a particular day). Now let us ask the following question: how does the probability P(X) relate to the probability P(Y), where X < Y < Gmax ? Do we have any reason to believe that P(X)is higher than P(Y) or P(X) is lower than P(Y) based solely on the information given in the statement of the problem? (now you understand why I have elaborated so much the point that we shall not use any extra information!!!). The clear and honest answer to that question is resounding NO, WE DON’T. Therefore the logical consistency and honesty demands: P(X)=P(Y) for all X < Gmax and all Y < Gmax (including of course X=0 and Y=0). Therefore, since we have Gmax + 1 possibilities (0,1,2,3, ..., Gmax) with equal probabilities of happening every day, it follows: P(X)=1/(Gmax + 1) for all 0<=X<=Gmax. For the Gmax + 1 equiprobable possibilities to have an average of 3000 (we know that the average of our distribution must be 6000000/2000=3000), we need to satisfy the following simple equation: ? Xi P(Xi) = 3000 (? means sum over all i from 0 to Gmax), i.e. (0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + Gmax)/(Gmax + 1) = 3000. After summing the arithmetical progression, we get: (Gmax + 1)(Gmax/2)/(Gmax + 1) = 3000 which, at last, yields Gmax = 6000 Isn’t that amazing! Using only pure logic and scant information given in the statement of the problem, I have arrived to the same estimate that you have. But you have used much more information. That’s the power or pure logic, GW. Now, the fundamental question is the one you have asked:
Those are $6000000 questions, GW ! 93
Posted by Ivan on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 05:03 | # A small correction is in order.
The above paragraph should read of course: If all gas chambers combined have the capacity to kill Gmax people per day, they can kill any count of people less than Gmax, including 0. That means, if we wish to remain logically honest and consistent, we must admit that the probability P(X) of killing exactly X must have a non-zero value, i.e. we potentially can have exactly X people put to death on any particular day, as long as X =< Gmax (for X=0, that means no one killed for a particular day). 94
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 06:43 | #
LOL! Yup, the functioning of the hypothalamus is socially constructed. 95
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:43 | #
This is true. I believe it was James Bowery who posted a screenshot of an online poll immediately following Arizona’s passing of SB1070. The votes were 3million in support, 150,000 against. 96% supported the new law. Yet, the courts put an injunction against most of the law and killed it before it would have taken effect. Then the government dropped the (absurd) hint that the Gifford’s shooter was somehow connected to American Renaissance. Coincidence? 96
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:05 | # Ivan, I am sorry I violated your rule of minimal input. But you have the advantage over me in numeracy and logic, and I could not contribute any other way. Nizkor, in its response to Leuchter, argued that the total oven incineration capacity for the Auschwitz site was “easily” 720 bodies in a 12 hour day: http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/leuchter-faq-08.html Over the 900 days in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Selection_process_and_genocide ... that would yield 648,000 incinerated bodies, not including the “burning pits” that are claimed to have operated. Even so until the announcement by the Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer in 1989, the deaths total claimed for Auschwitz 1 and 2 was 4.5 million. Bauer stated publicly for the first time that this was not a defensible figure, and the true figure was in the area of 1.5 million. Of course, in the EU it is not wise to enquire to deeply into this, and certainly never to ask how the totemic 6 million figure came to be sacred writ in all the years before Bauer’s acknowledgement, and all the years since. Our function is to believe. What we are told to believe. 97
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:16 | #
I <b>believe</i> that I broke the Civil War thread. No more experimenting with hyperlinks for my part. 99
Posted by Guest on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 01:20 | # http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9693 Butz excerpt The NAACP was founded by Jews and led by Jews. Cultural Genocide “Something is happening: we are becoming the first universal nation in history ... If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Jewish neo-conservative Ben Wattenberg, The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 84. Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University, “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, February 19, 1993, p. 23) “It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed ... In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community had a leadership role in effecting those changes.” (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, July 23, 1993, p. 17)
100
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 03:07 | #
Absolutely, GW. I know precisely what you are talking about, and I have neither desire nor inclination to jeopardize not only your conformity with the law, but even to subject your Majorityrights’ project, that I came to value and appreciate, to the risk of being terminated.
This is very perceptive of you. I would even go a bit further and say: Gmax for the period of maximum lethality would quite likely have to significantly exceed 6000. Remember that we have arrived at figure 6000 for Gmax using absolute minimum of information that we have accepted as the truth. Now let us think about it a bit more using nothing but common sense. 1. It is absolutely unreasonable to believe that the mass murder weapon, i.e. the gas chambers, had reached Gmax at the outset of the war - it is much more reasonable to assume that they necessarily had to reach that level gradually after an extended period of time. First the occupation would have to take place, then the building of many different facilities at many different places. 2. It is very hard to believe that putting people to death was like a well scheduled production process because, if not for any other reason, the people, to be put to death, at least had to be collected first in a war which is a very haphazard and moody enterprise that does not render itself easily for a well organized and well predictable adventure - even for well organized and methodical people like Germans. These two considerations tell me that the process we are trying to deal with here has more to do with geometrical progression rather than arithmetical one. Earlier we have arrived at the very rough and very wide bracket for Gmax: it is significantly more than 3,000 and significantly less than 6000,000. The common average, most people are familiar with, is the one we call otherwise mean, or arithmetical average. There are two other major averages known to the mathematicians: harmonic mean and geometrical mean. Which average is more appropriate for a particular problem is usually becomes clear from the nature of the problem. The harmonic mean is the appropriate average to use when we are dealing with rates and prices, for example. In our problem, for the two reasons I have outlined above, the geometric average is clearly more appropriate. The geometric mean of the two limiting cases for Gmax is obtained by multiplying those two numbers and taking the square root of the product, and that yields Gmax = 134,164 ! That’s a huge number, but my intuition goes easily with it, and I strongly believe this number is much closer to the real number that is required to account for the 6 million Holocaust narrative. The previous analysis was much more rigorous logically but, of course, that does not necessarily mean that the number 6,000 is more accurate than 134,164 yielded by the heuristic analysis that does not admittedly qualify for a mathematical analysis. The reason for that is very simple: in the strong and impeccable logical analyses offered earlier, we have restricted ourselves to very limited information for the sake of gaining impeccable logical analysis. Now, GW, think about that number: Gmax = 134,164. It blows the mind away. Could the Nazi gas chambers, at the pick of their combined capacity, to closely approach that of the two atomic bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I submit my case to the jury. 101
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 03:52 | # Ivan and GW: While I admire your efforts at quantitative analysis, I think its misleading because it begs the question that large numbers of Jews, or other people were actually the victims of gassing or some other type of industrial extermination process. Do you actually believe that? 102
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 05:39 | # Jimmy, You are the last person I would have expected such a question from! Isn’t the purpose of these calculations obvious? Shame on you, foot soldier! Here is a clue for you: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Reductio_ad_absurdum 103
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 07:20 | # Ivan, I get the idea, and I appreciate it, but the strategy reminds me somewhat of an unmarried man using a mathematical argument to respond to the question “Did you beat your wife 6 million times?” 104
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 09:06 | #
More specifically, the basal ganglia. 105
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:32 | #
Precisely. Just don’t concentrate on the word ‘mathematical’ too much. Think more of it as a ‘logical argument’. Let us use your excellent example. The key point here is that the jury wasn’t told that the man is unmarried and it has no clue about man’s marital status. How does the unmarried man respond to the charge? He says: Ok, let us assume that the statement “I did beat my wife 6 million times” is correct. For that statement to be true, it is absolutely necessary that I have or, at least, had wife in the past. Wouldn’t you agree, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Now let us look into this inquiry, i.e. whether I have wife or not, more closely. If I have or had wife in the past, that would imply certain things like: a certificate of marriage was issued by some agency, I might have kids, my neighbors saw a woman going in and out of my house almost every day, they heard me saying “My wife did this or that”, etc, etc, etc. But after the man’s neighbors’ testimonies, after checking the records of all the agencies in the country etc, etc, etc it turned out that none of the consequences of having a wife could be verified by impartial investigators. Then what is the conclusion the jury should make? The answer is clear: “We believe without any reasonable doubt that this man has no wife and never had one, therefore the original charge couldn’t be possibly true. What is more - he couldn’t possibly beat his wife even once! The case is closed. The man can go free. 107
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:28 | # Jimmy, You might not realize it, but in the final analysis everything in real life boils down to the logical analysis: (1) in mathematics everything boils down to the two-valued (true/ false) logical analysis; (2) everything beyond the scope of mathematics, even the matters related to the so-called exact sciences, like physics and chemistry, boils down to the calculus of probabilities: 0<=P(of some event or some proposition)<=1. If we have estimated the probability of some event, or some proposition, as being 0, that simply means that we believe absolutely that event couldn’t take place. If we have estimated the probability of some other event, or some other proposition, as being 1 that simply means we have absolutely no doubt that event took place. If we have absolutely no reason to believe one way or the other, we call it absolute ignorance, or in the language of calculus of probabilities: p=1/2. If we are inclined to believe that some event took place, or some proposition is true, but we have no way to now for sure, human brain somehow, even thou we don’t know exactly how, assigns some probability to it: p > 1/2. How high it goes above 1/2 depends on how strongly we believe in the proposition. That’s why it is said the calculus of probabilities is the extension to the mathematical (or Boolean, or two-valued, or true/ false, or 0/1, or Aristotelian - there are many other names for it, but all mean the same) logic. The domain of the two-valued logic is almost exclusively limited to mathematics (even the computers cannot be reduced to ones and zeros because a real computer is a material thing, and for that reason, it can break down), i.e. it’s scope is extremely narrow. To form a judgment about everything else, we simply have no other choice but resort to the calculus of probabilities - the real logic of life. Let’s say I want to form a judgment (or, in other words, an opinion) about the following statement: A person who is a frequent visitor at Majorityrights with a pen name Jimmy Marr is a male. For somebody who has no idea what Majorityrights site is all about, and has never seen that site, not to mention never heard of Jimmy Marr, the probability for that statement should be 1/2. The fact that Jimmy is a male’s name does not have any judgment forming value here because we know that it is just a pen name. But I have a lot of relevant information to form an opinion that goes beyond blank ignorance. For example, the mere fact that Jimmy is a frequent visitor at Majorityrights is already a big signal to me that Jimmy is a male, because I know what Majorityrights site is all about - very few females would be interested in discussing, day in and day out, things of interest at Majorityrights. Not only that, I have read many things written by Jimmy and I have my reasons, which are rooted in my intuition, to believe that things like that would be very unlikely to be said by a woman. And it goes like that on and on and on. But would I assign a probability 1 to the statement at hand, i.e. am I certain that Jimmy is, in fact, a male? No, of course not, but my probability assignment for it is very close to 1. Let’s take another example. You said: I like Nick Kellerstrom’s approach . Why is that? Why do you like Nick Kellerstrom’s approach? Do you have a level of knowledge of chemistry that would allow you to make a judgment about Zyclon-B and it’s properties Nick is talking about? Do you know this guy personally and can you attest that he is an honest guy and he knows what he is talking about? Did Nick make his own observations at Auschwitz with his own eyes or he simply repeats what somebody else said? What’s the agenda of these two guys on YouTube video? How this video came about? While you were watching this video, your brain has asked all those questions and many others, even if you are not aware of them all. Not only that, your brain answered all those questions and has assigned a probability to all propositions implied by those questions. You don’t know how your brain did that, nobody knows exactly. But the brain does it. It is an open ended and extremely important question of the branch of scientific inquiry called theory of probability. A layman thinks that probability theory is about throwing a coin, counting heads and tales, and do some statistical calculations afterwards. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me repeat the words of Laplace and Jaynes again, in hope they will sink. Laplace: Calculus of probabilities is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation 108
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 10 Feb 2011 04:57 | #
The hypothalamus and basal ganglia are located in the midbrain, or top of the brainstem. This is where the most basic, viseral sense of ‘self’ is quite likely produced. These serve as a support for the higher cognitive functioning of the cerebral cortex. What ideas the cerebral cortex absorbs can influence the functioning of the midbrain, but I don’t think it is accurate to ascribe the shaping power of ideas “social construction” implies to the functioning of the midbrain. So, therefore, to say that the functioning of the midbrain is more “socially constructed” than genetically programmed would not be correct. Insofar as Foucault would affirm the former and disaffirm the latter he would be in error. 109
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:54 | # Neither Foucault or I have said the mid-brain is “socially constructed”. Here’s an example:
Apparently, the briefcase impacted the subconscious or unconscious brain in ways that were not consciously recognised by the participants. Maybe it did maybe it didn’t, but it is the briefcase that is socially constructed not the brain, however, it was the brain that brought forth this unconscious suggestion that had been constructed around the briefcase. And the briefcase and its apparent influence are the result of discourse. In other words its not the briefcase per se that influenced the students but the “personal identity” constructed around the briefcase, a social construct that is the result of discourse. 110
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:45 | # Holohoax tales are a means of learning 111
Posted by GoyAmongYou on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:36 | #
Count the Euro feminazis on the left bar of these links: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_6.html Apostolesses to the Gentilesses is more like it. Post a comment:
Next entry: Mind War is the deliberate, aggressive convincing of all parties in a war that we will win that war
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 30 Jan 2011 01:31 | #
That’s what it says. They were very exact in those days.