… when you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
It might not come as a surprise if I tell you that this Journal, due perhaps to its growing importance as an outspoken defender of our great Christian European culture, and particularly with regard to truth as above mentioned, has received a clandestine document which elucidates a few intriguing aspects concerning the theft of a large batch of top secret US Foreign Service assessments, appraisals and evaluations, all shoved up the sleeve of one surreptitious if not slightly sinister Julian Assange, self-proclaimed global snitch and owner of WikiLeaks, an Internet site that declares as its honourable intent to rattle the mighty.
Which it doubtlessly does on occasion.
Yet it appears that some questions have popped up as to Mr. Assange’s integrity. They can’t be answered outright, but simmer on a low fire and thus provide me with a spot of speculative insinuation helpful for the general construct of my tale.
The fact that the aforementioned document has been slipped under my digital doorstep, I hasten to say, does not touch in any way upon my largely absent journalistic merits, but came to pass because I am, perchance and only alphabetically, the first in line. Another reason must have been the strong probability that my editor, had it landed on his heavily cluttered desk, would have rejected it out of hand.
The document is the copy of a copy of a fax of a copy of an e-mail of a machine typed draft of a short-hand outline of a verbal précis, the latter delivered in the sound-proof annexe of the US embassy in Jerusalem by a diplomatic operative of undisclosed function, codename NICK, to a diplomatic superior of unidentified activity, codename DICK.
Its working title reads like this: FIRST FISSURES IN THE ZIONIST FORTRESS
Well, you may say, an unlikely possibility, but blessed be the Lord and all His Hosts if it were true. The document itself is a leak within a leak within a leak. Or in other words, a scrap of information Mr. Assange might have preferred to keep to himself.
Let me recapitulate.
A deeply worried administration, fearful that the recent deluge of WikiLeaks could bring to light some of its more creepy if not downright criminal activities, initiated a worldwide hunt for the site’s founder, Julian Assange. To give it a guise of legality, however flimsy, Sweden was approached, Sweden being a staunch ally ruled by an uneasy Marxist coalition of Pansies-cum-Sapphics who long since have made the pilgrimage to Canossa. And who spawn the most absurd excrescences of political correctness, like the sad descent of the once coveted Nobel Peace Prize into a farce of such magnitude that its conferment isn’t seen anymore as a honour, but a serious insult to the honour of any decent human being. A decline initiated with its uproarious bestowal on that feverishly hallucinating crackpot Elie Weasel, and culminating in the choice of the present president of the United States who is as committed to peace as Bibi his minder.
Using a fairly recent law that has a healthy man’s balls cut off if he dares to wink so much as an eye at one of those long-legged Swedish blondes, the latter perhaps recently raped by a socially rejected Muslim whose case was dropped on the grounds of religious immunity, poor Mr. Assange has been accused of tricking an undercover hooker into believing that he was protected by a strawberry-scented condom, whereas in fact he had only lubricated his masculine appendix with a layer of inexpensive Wal-Mart ice-cream imported from China. Now this is, at least in Sweden, a serious criminal offence, and reason enough to alert Interpol, Mossad, MI 5 plus 6, and the FBI respectively. Who went into action and pinpointed without delay the culprit’s whereabouts, an obscure hotel in the cradle of modern democracy, once Great Britain. Whose most accommodating regime had the bugger’s door kicked down before sunrise, took him by the ears and slapped him into jail. And where, as everyone believed, he would smart only a few days until his extradition to Sweden and, at a remove, to the seething US.
So far, so good.
The once exquisite BBC, long since degraded into a boot-licking media moll, unleashed the usual propaganda broadside, to the effect that Mr. Assange was a danger to society and should be neutralized. Back in the US voices were more outspoken, advocating tarring and feathering, or just the electric chair. Visa, Mastercard and other banking institutions cut WikiLeaks’ financial lifelines, thereby giving you a clear idea who owns them, provided of course you didn’t know it already. Which led to an upsurge of worldwide sympathy for Mr. Assange whose reputation had been seriously dented when he maintained hilariously that 9/11 was strictly Bin Laden and no conspiracy whatsoever. A stance that could be, on hindsight, an important clue why he got out on bail.
And how on earth did that come to pass, you may ask? Who pulled the necessary strings?
Julian Assange’s lawyer is the prominent Mark Stephens whose law firm Finers Stephens Innocent acts as legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust, the latter concerned with the “maintenance, improvement and payment of certain of the outgoings in respect of Waddesdon Manor (the British Rothschild’s most prestigious property, pro forma owned by the National Trust) in the Vale of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.”
The Waddesdon Board of Trustees is chaired by the Queen’s former Private Secretary Lord Fellowes and has three Rothschild family members as trustees, Lord Jacob Rothschild, Lady Rothschild (his wife) and Beth Matilda Rothschild. It is domiciled 14 St James’s Place in London which is also the London address of Lord Jacob Rothschild and his high profile wealth management business St. James’s Place Group (formerly J. Rothschild Assurance Group). As a side note, Mark Stephens’ law firm Finers Stephens Innocent appears to have a strong focus in providing tax avoidance advisory services to mega-rich customers (see Michael Lewis and Simon Malkiel particularly) such as, I suspect, Sir Philip Green who advises the government on how to recover the mega money he and his peers avoid to pay.
In summary, Assange’s lawyer is a high profile establishment figure whose firm works for the Rothschilds.
Lord Jacob (right) with Friends
Which might come as a surprise to those who have, perhaps on a democratically inspired impulse, donated some money for poor Mr. Assange’s defence. What makes the surprise so intriguing is the set of players involved, particularly if you believe, like we all do, that a prominent lawyer with such illustrious connections would never have touched, not even with the proverbial bargepole, an internationally hunted rabble-rouser who threatened to embarrass the mighty, Wall Street and Israel included.
But the former did the unthinkable and got the latter out of jail. So where would the great Sherlock Holmes arrive, once the impossible had been eliminated and only the improbable remained? At the conclusion that someone leaked on someone he didn’t like, and someone else leaked the leak because he didn’t like both.
I have deleted some spook-related paraphernalia and give you only the essentials.
Monday, December 28th, 04.21 PM to 04.24 PM.
NICK: Tell those clowns in DC to stop worrying. The whole thing is an internal flare-up and won’t get out of hand.
DICK: Wow! Internal how?!
NICK: Codename Izzies, those with the nukes, and Codename Heebies, those with the dough, ain’t each other that kosher anymore.
DICK: Wow! Why not?!
NICK: Codename Heebies think Codename Izzies are going bonkers. Which is bad for business.
DICK: Wow! Why?
NICK: Because the world is waking up and thinks the Codename Heebies are responsible for all the world’s woes.
DICK: Wow! Aren’t they?
NICK: Mostly. But it’s bad for business if the world knows.
DICK: Wow! And?
NICK: To make the Codename Izzies toe the line, the Codename Heebies are threatening to leak some embarrassing information as to the Codename Izzies’ present political leaders and their criminal antics and associates.
DICK: Wow! And will that make them toe the line?
NICK: It will. Because Jerusalem politics are the toughest in the world. If they can’t screw the Goyim, they screw each other.
DICK: Wow! With screws?
NICK: With leaks, you twit!
DICK: I see! Wow!
End of brief.
Reading it a few times over, it set me thinking. Which in due course resulted in my penning the following little assessment. It is certainly far-fetched, but hopefully readable. And to be on the safe side, I left a backdoor open in case it comes back and tries to bite me in the backside.
I HAVE NO INTENTION to endorse Codename NICK’s improbable conclusions without previous and serious combinative scrutiny. But like every thinking person the world over, I have noticed as well some interesting shifts with regard to present power structures and struggles.
A recent global opinion poll, published by the BBC, has gauged the degree of esteem commanded by some 28 countries worldwide. Forever repentant Germany made the top, which comes as little surprise since there can’t be a people more generously inclined but the demented Krauts who toss money at everyone, and who, incredibly, have paid only a month ago the last reparations for World War One, a cataclysm they never wanted or started.
What made the poll truly interesting is the fact that very near the ladder’s absolute bottom, a dark and damned region where you can hear already the hiss of Hell’s furnaces, resides Israel. Clearly seen by the world as its most despicable and abhorrent member, has it suffered a devastating propaganda defeat which is even more surprising since it commands most of the world’s media outlets. The poll, by the way, was conducted before the amateurish Dubai assassination and the cowardly murder of nine unarmed members of the Gaza peace flotilla. We know of course that Israel’s political leaders don’t give a wet fart about world opinion, just like its spiritual leaders who are totally unconcerned about it since they believe the rest of mankind to be a subhuman species with the divinely ordered task to feather Zion’s nest and nothing else. Attitudes which explain why the hideous aggression in Gaza and on the West Bank continues unabated, no matter if it is widely condemned in the Internet or timidly commented on by the BBC and similar Zionist quislings. A sane person may ask from whence this brazen arrogance is issuing, and knows the answer straight away.
From the financiers and oligarchs.
Who have lavishly abetted Herzl’s dream and its untimely realization with trillions of US dollars, Deutschmarks and Euros respectively, all derived from shady investment schemes or milked out of palsied American and German taxpayers. Periodic accidents like junk bond scandals, currency rigging or simply large-scale thefts could do nothing to undermine the world’s deep-felt gratitude for the heroic little country and its loaded chaperones who were defending Western democratic values so bravely in the very heart of Muslim badland. Thus Israel and her military behemoth got the money it wanted, and the Wall Street, London and Frankfurt crooks collected it with ever increasing impudence. This co-operation worked smoothly for forty years and more. Its centrepiece is the unwritten proviso that the Rothschilds, Schiffs, Blankfeins, Fulds, Levys et al. can own the finest properties in Eretz Israel, but need not live there at all. This because they infinitely favour their German castles, French chateaus, English manors or magnificent US estates, together with a bottle of Chateau Lafitte, a slice of sublime Foie Gras, and an evening out with Wagner and Berenboim.
Waddesdon Manor
Like Russia today.
Though not a few decades ago, when it seemed an unlikely if not downright absurd possibility. Because in those days business-as-usual was running amazingly smooth, with nearly everything in Jewish hands, from politicians, presidents, companies, newspapers, the Federal Reserve, the best land and whatnot, all nicely hidden from preying eyes, and underpinned by a booming economy and hard-working citizens.
Turn of the tide might have been Arik Sharon’s Lebanon invasion and the many dead civilians, women and children alike, who left a bad aftertaste worldwide. Then came the internet. Age-old and cleverly woven veils were torn to shreds and revealed the naked and ugly truth. We know by now that Israel is the world leader in trafficking prostitutes, blood diamonds, heroin, crack, organs derived from young Palestinians, and other hideous merchandise. We see photos of young children in Gaza with their feet blown off who have bled slowly and agonizingly to death. We hear whispers that 9/11 was a Mossad operation to force us into the messy Afghan war. We know…
And as if that weren’t enough, the home-front began to crumble as well. Our financial system is in tatters because some megalomaniac Illuminati with a mad urge to control the world invented globalism and multiculturalism, ripped off a few trillion bucks too many, ruined the economy and now are printing mountains of worthless paper money to avoid, at least for the moment, a national collapse. Last year over a million houses have been foreclosed, usually because the owners lost their jobs. This year and next year it will be even worse. Thus millions of people are and will be ousted from homes they have been paying off for years, and which now end up, as the great Robert Fuld put it so nicely, for a song in the claws of the bankers. Then there are those who were tricked out of their savings and pensions. Or those who lost their jobs to cheap and illegal immigrants. Or those…
Lately I think sometimes about the French revolution, and how it erupted without forewarning. How the greedy and mighty and hideous were taken by surprise. How glaringly obvious their criminal nonchalance had been, their brazen disregard, their porcine inability to judge the mood of the time.
And how they ended up one by one on the guillotine.
Perhaps there are some, far more concerned than I am, who think along similar lines. Because it simply can’t be that everyone is so absolutely short-sighted, so ridden by a demented greed which can’t be anything but suicidal. Perhaps there are a few cooler heads who have the wider view, men with an erudition and sophistication generated by centuries of near unbelievable tolerance on the part of their cultured hosts. Men who are capable, and in spite of all their horrible wealth, to muster a spot of common sense, even wisdom.
Hence the leaks…
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
When Heidi went to Heaven 
wait a minute; I thought the Robespierres were the bad guys.
Oh dear, this excellent article is going to send the resident jew trolls into hyper-drive. LOL !
And, it’s over to you, trolls………..
Another masterpiece, but of course it’s just conspiracy theory… ;-)
I guess the French Revolution as an analogy for a general revolution is ok but I don’t think we want those kinds of revolutionaries running the show.
Why not a post a complete copy of the copy of the fax of the copy? It would be interesting to see.
This guy never gets it. Or is he playing to the new folks who still aren’t sure of what’s going on?
Michael you have outdone yourself.
A revolution? Well, if we must, we must.
Surely, smart men are giving some thought to a plan that would bring all nations together with the mutual understanding of removing the Jew’s grip over their governments, media and economy. Since the Jews are united against the world surely it behooves the world to unite against the Jews. I think I can safely say no one likes them.
Lots of grand rhetoric (and thus convenient exclusion of lots of other revealing information) so let’s take the UK. Jews comprise just 0.5% percent of the UK population (like the British Chinese). That tiny figure refers to all age groups, and both sexes too. Take a look at the wealth distribution. If the top 5% of the UK population owns 40% of the wealth, it won’t just be the tiny proportion of UK Jews that will have to be dragged to the guillotine will it?
There are all sorts living the US/UK/EU self-centred dream. Why not focus on the dream and the majority, rather than the minority? People mass migrated to the USA in the late C19th and early C20th in pursuit of the unregulated, supposedly equalitarian, American Dream with guaranteed freedom of access according to the US Constitution. They sailed to NYC, and many didn’t leave. They came and they prospered. Much the same is happening in London today, except the migrants aren’t prospering – they aren’t as smart. Being smart and being good/nice etc don’t seem to be related much.
My advice, look instead to the demographics of NYC and the narcissism of the Libertarian American Dream as it’s a false promise, and like all false promises, ultimately self-destructive.
Jews are of primarily interest as an endogamous ethnic group which can tell us something about the cognitive elite in general.
David,
The focus is on an ethnic group who places itself above all and attempts to weaken the majority group in whatever nation it inhabits – not all rich people.
Earlier migrations to America was by mainly white Europeans; today its mainly Mexican, African…anything but white.
Are you in favor of mass immigration of non-whites into white countries? It seems that you are.
Ask Middle Class white US/UK/EU citizens about firm advice they were given from parents in the 50s/60s with respect to associating with, and especially mating with, the ‘wrong sorts’, or think about those who colonised S Asia or Africa. Jewish separatism/elitism isn’t unique. Then look more closely at the elite and underclass in all other groups (cf. India).
True, and it’s done today primarily because of the low White birth-rates which is extremely perilous for Libertarian economies/consumerism/pensions etc. Why is this point not sinking in? See what Frattini said in 2007 (referenced in another comment).
‘Seems’ is the term. Many here don’t appear to be able to discriminate between analysis of a problem and a personal view. Describing how something happens is not the same thing as stating a personal belief or preference. What does what I personally favour or not have to do with whether or not what I refer to is or is not, the case? Too many people posting here do not make this distinction. Too many do not see the difference between what they think and what is actually the case. This is an important point, as I am highlighting something about metaphysical solipsism, a variant of narcissism, which is endemic today. Why, and what is the point of counting noses when people agree or disagree, as it’s no guide to truth? Counting what people agree with is akin to counting who likes blue cheese.
Describing what one thinks/believes etc vs what is the (probably) case in the world, are subtly, but importantly different. Alas, to some, they are the same.
It’s a failure to discriminate, a venal selection/creation of right-wing Libertarian political correctness in pursuit of predatory consumerism.
‘Seems’ is the term. Many here don’t appear to be able to discriminate between analysis of a problem and a personal view.”
Yes, point taken, our economic system must have population growth.
Can population growth only be achieved through immigration? It is this same libertarian (assuming that’s what it is) philosophy that pushes birth control, abortion, feminism (anti – barefoot and pregnant), and a rejection of the high birth rate religion of Christianity. Why don’t the powers that be attack these mores instead of focussing solely on immigration? Perhaps because these powers don’t care a whole lot about gentiles.
“Ask Middle Class white US/UK/EU citizens about firm advice they were given from parents in the 50s/60s with respect to associating with, and especially mating with, the ‘wrong sorts’, or think about those who colonised S Asia or Africa. Jewish separatism/elitism isn’t unique. Then look more closely at the elite and underclass in all other groups (cf. India).”
Of course this is true but it is a thing of the past. The gestalt today is that whites are bad and must repent; white racialist are the lowest of the low. I would welcome a little white pride. I don’t knock the Jews for taking care of their own.
I’ve covered this elsewhere repeatedly. Perhaps you have missed it because it was hidden by too many thumbs down from people not liking what clashes with what they like to believe? Seriously, that is how it works.
Right-wing Libertarian liberation of females long ago served to increase the number of workers and thus consumers/debtors. It increased profits, it increased property prices (and this loans/debt and the money supply). But it also reduced the birth rate whilst also dumbing down the population as more bright girls went into higher education and careers instead of starting families early relative to the less bright girls who did not go into higher education and careers. The dumbing down was good for business, the falling birth-rate not. Liberal-Democratic consumerism demands non discriminating (dumb) consumers not smart people who are debt averse. To compensate for the below-replacement level birth-rates, right-wing Libertarian politicians and their activists have encouraged foreign, lower ability immigration to make up the numbers. Note it is low-skilled immigrants as these also have more children who are not so smart, which is good for profit and the money supply. This is truly venal and predatory, and it is right-wing not left-wing. It hits Jews and Gentiles. It is the system that does this, not individuals or ethnic groups. The people who benefit just want to make money and ‘get on’. They don’t think about the long term consequences. That is narcissism at work, and sadly, it’s Libertarian.
How long do you think this comment will last? ;-)
Thumbs down – it wouldn’t really matter were it not for it causing comments to be censored -that mechanism should be ended.
Ok – but you can place the blame for immigration directly on the Jews. It was their money, lobby, lawyers that repealed the Immigration Act in 1952.
The increased consumers and decreased wages as a result of feminism is true but all the big feminist were Jews for the most part; why?
Who battles Christianity – the ACLU which is Jewish.
More generally, Jews were/are in seats of power in all the battles: PC, anti-white, anti-male, quotas, affirmative action, immigration etc.; is this an illusion?
One of the 2 white women who went to the police (to get them to force Assange to take a HIV test) which led to the police insisting there would have to be an investigation is indeed blonde, what is the relevance of that ?
Elite Jews may have limited sympathy with Israel’s positions of late and the political class in Western countries want to remove the instability that the Israeli/Arab conflict creates (The London Review of Books has been called “der Stürmer-lite for intellectuals”). However if Israel has come to be seen as an arrogant Goliath state it is only because it is in reality very strong relative to its enemies, if I don’t think that anyone who has looked at KM’s article ‘Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism’ would expect any breach to become so serious that there would be threats to reveal Jewish secrets to the gentiles.
For those who believe Israel did a false flag 9/11 all things are possible, (Guy Debord thought a sudden revolution was on the horizon for decades). Tell me are these tumbrils under a blood red sky going to be remote controlled ? I have met a few people who believe in a false flag 9/11 but they think it was all the evil American military industrial complex led by Bush and Cheney, that is the most common version of the 9/11conspiracy theory and hence it is no benchmark of a firm grasp on reality to disbelieve in the received version of 9/11. (Sorry, but all true nationalists don’t subscribe to the Israeli false flag 9/11 theory, those who assume otherwise can count on a challenge )
I
On blonde “whores”
@ Someday
You hate me, I know, for attacking you ceaselessly as a “Zionist troll”. However, I just want to let you know that I gave that last post of yours a thumbs up…even though I think you are wrong to go on pooh-poohing 9-11 “conspiracy theories”.
Whoever did 9-11, one thing is certain: the government is lying through its back teeth. The official version simply cannot be accepted by anyone of moderate intelligence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your post however, apart from its erroneous attitude to 9-11, was well-researched. It had much to say of interest about hostile attitudes to blonde Swedish women who are increasingly being described as “whores” — for no other reason than that they happen to be blonde and stunningly attractive.
It seems any desirable young woman who shows a bit of leg nowadays runs the risk of being described as a “whore”.
Misogyny plays a huge part in this negative stereotype — an attitude not unrelated to the rampant pornography we see proliferating all round us.
Women who behave badly, as whores behave, tend to give ALL women a bad name.
Yes, pornography nutures misogyny.
If porn were banned and women knew how to dress and behave more modestly, as women were accustomed to do in past centuries, respect for women would grow by leaps and bounds.
Unfortunately, organized Jewry helps to promote pornography and is behind 90 percent of the world’s porn industry.
White women who keep taking their clothes off, just to earn a few bucks from Jewish porngraphers, are letting their race down.
These women are not only whores, they are race traitors.
They undermine the morale of their own menfolk, thus making it easier for the Jews to control and manipulate them.
Anonyma, I was actually taking issue with Colhaze’s attitude :-
First of all most women in Sweden are not blonde (there has never been an ethnic group which was all blonde).
Why mention the color of her hair in connection with her sexual behavior, he actually calls her an “undercover whore”. Is this nationalism? No, it is one more reversal of the traditional culture of the West by Jewish culture.
Colhaze is endorsing a Jewish stereotype of what blondes are like, one which has no basis in reality and demeans our women
I have been too harsh on some articles and I really wanted to be generous to this one. However if some things can’t be passed over in silence, once mentioned they’re up for debate. Most people I’ve met who believe 9/11 was a false flag are not nationalists; quite the opposite. if you believe Israel did 9/11 but don’t want to be called on it – then don’t mention it.
“True, and it’s done today primarily because of the low White birth-rates which is extremely perilous for Libertarian economies/consumerism/pensions etc.”
If there is such a problem as Libertarian economies/consumerism/pensions, then white people will sort it out. Low white birth rates do not need to be addressed in an all white country. Children take care of parents.
But when government encourages non-whites to multiply then the government needs a lager supply of money to support them. Add to the white tax burden the massive Third World immigrant tax burden and you have our present situation.
Low white births are not a problem in a white society.
There’s a reason why MacDonald would have rejected that out of hand.
Colhaze is a talented writer, but this article is full of too much colorful/stylized rhetoric. We definitely need that, but this topic and particularly on this website, it’s too much and doesn’t work well.
Another criticism would be the reference to the French Revolution in a positive light. I think that is a huge mistake considering many educated people view that as one of the worst events, if not the worst, in the last 500 years.
On a positive note, I am proud that TOO allowed the author room to criticize 9/11 and hint at the Mossad being involved. We need more respected people bringing light on this issue. A great movie concerning that sole topic is called Missing Links, which can be watched for free on the 911MissingLinks website.
I also must agree with the general point that Julian Assange is purposely not bringing up any damning information about Israel or the Jews. Colhaze brought up some good points about connections between Assange and Jewish figures. But still, I think it was a mistake to publish that “leak,” especially if that was the edited version.
Michael, “as an outspoken defender of our great Christian European culture” I am intrigued to know from you what are some of the fundamental principles – fundamental truths = upon which this “great Christian European culture” was founded and built.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn did not share your enthusiasm and in fact saw that the West had betrayed that civilisation. Whilst still a prisoner in one of the Soviet Gulags he reminded the West: “We are living your future”.
In his 1976 BBC address “The West’s Betrayal of Civilisation” he said:
“In the years which followed the world-wide upheaval of 1917 that pragmatic philosophy on which present-day Europe was nourished, with its refusal to take moral decisions, has reached its logical conclusion: since there are no higher spiritual forces above us and since I – Man with a capital M – am the crowning glory of the universe, then should anyone have to perish today let it be someone else, anybody but not I, not my precious self, nor those who are close to me…
Socialism defies logic. You see, it is an emotional impulse, a kind of worldly religion, and nobody has the slightest need to study or even to read the teachings of its early prophets…
There is another myth here, too, namely that Socialism represents a sort of ultra-modern structure, an alternative to dying capitalism. Socialist systems made up the greatest portion of the previous history of mankind – in the Ancient East, in China; and were to be repeated later in the bloody experiments of the Reformation.
As for Socialist doctrines, (as Igor Shafarevich wrote) has shown that they emerged far later but have still been with us for over two thousand years; and that they originated not in an eruption of progressive thought as people think nowadays, but as a reaction – Plato’s reaction against Athenian democracy, the Gnostics’ reaction against Christianity – a reaction against the dynamic world of individualism and a return to the impersonal, stagnant system of antiquity.
And if we follow the explosive sequence of Socialist doctrines and Socialist Utopias preached in Europe – by Thomas More, Campanella, Winstanley, Morelli, Deschamps, Baboeuf, Fourier, Marx and dozens of others – we cannot help shuddering as they openly proclaim certain features of that terrible form of society…”
I have been contemplating Solzhenitsyn’s words and rereading Dorothy L. Sayers’ 1941-1942 BBC Play-Cycle on the Life of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ – “The Man Born to Be King” – in which she sets out her understanding of Judas’ character.
Sayers’ writes: “Judas in the Gospels is an enigma. He is introduced suddenly, at a late moment in the action, “all set” for villainy. We are not told how he came to be a disciple, nor what motives drove him to betray his Master. St. John says he was a thief; he certainly took payment for his treason; Jesus called him “diabolos”- the enemy – and “the son of perdition”; when he had done his worst and saw what he had done, he brought back the reward of iniquity and went out and hanged himself. He seems a strange mixture of the sensitive and the insensitive.
One thing is certain: he cannot have been the creeping, crawling, patently worthless villain that some simple-minded people would like to make out; that would be to cast too grave a slur upon the brains or the character of Jesus.
To choose an obvious crook as one’s follower, in ignorance of what he was like, would be the act of a fool; and Jesus of Nazareth was no fool, and indeed St. John expressly says that “He knew what was in” Judas from the beginning. But to choose an obvious crook for the express purpose of letting him damn himself would be the act of a devil; for a man, a fortiori for a God, who behaved like that, nobody – except perhaps Machiavelli – could feel any kind of respect. But also (and this is far more important for our purpose), either of these sorts of behaviour would be totally irreconcilable with the rest of the character of Jesus as recorded.
Sayers’ continued:
Dramatic handling stern test of Theology:
You might write an anti-Christian tract making Him out to be weak-minded and stupid; you might even write a theological treatise of the pre-destinarian sort making Him out to be beyond morality; but there is no means whatever by which you could combine either of these theories with the rest of His words and deeds and make a play of them. The glaring inconsistencies in the character would wreck the show: no honest dramatist could write such a part; no actor could play it; no intelligent audience could accept it. That is what I mean by saying that dramatic handling is a stern test of theology, and that the dramatist must tackle the material from his own end of the job. No; the obviously villainous Judas will not do, either dramatically or theologically – the most damnable of all sins is a subtler thing than any crude ambition or avarice.
The worst evil in the world is brought about, not by the open and self-confessed vices, but by the deadly corruption of the proud virtues. Pride, which cast Lucifer the Archangel out of Heaven and Adam out of the Eden of primal innocence, is the head and front of all sin, and the besetting sin of highly virtuous and intelligent people.
Jesus, who dealt gently with “publicans and sinners”, was hard as nails about the lofty-minded sins; He was a consistent person, and if He spoke of Judas with almost unexampled sternness, it is likely that the sin of Judas was of a peculiarly over-weening loftiness.
What his familiar devil precisely was, we are at liberty to conjecture; I have conjectured that it was an intellectual devil of a very insidious kind, very active in these days and remarkably skilful in disguising itself as an angel of light. The fact that various persons have written angrily to say that the Judas I have depicted seems to them to be a person of the utmost nobility – actuated by extremely worthy motives, confirms my impression that this particular agent of hell is at present doing his master’s work with singular thoroughness and success. His exploits go unrecognised – which is just what the devil likes best…”
Sorry for the lengthy comment – but I do think it is worth contemplating on..
Betty of Adelaide
<blockquote?"A Fashion in Thinking
Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises
Thursday, June 8, 1978
“
Brahms – Orthodox Judaism has been, like Islam, very strict about the roles of females. Some Orthodox Jewesses rebelled (think Yentyl), and many Gentile females were easily misled. Note that the female IQ distribution has a narrower range than the male (as well as a lower mean), so there are numerically less very bright females than there are very bright males (there are half the number of females with IQs above 120 than males). The sexes are not equal. Furthermore, given that females also tend to have higher verbal than spatial IQ (the reverse of males), may it be the case that bright females (and those with feminised brains more generally) fluently argue for what they want without spatially (logically and empirically) following through the consequences of their behaviours?
Whilst it is indeed the case that many influential feminists have been Jewish, but many anarchists/Libertarians are/have been too. I’m asserting that they may not be aware of the consequences of their behaviours, i.e. ‘they know not what they do’. They have scotoma. The consequences control their behaviour too.
Have you seen the NYC demographics (bearing in mind the genetics and possible behavioural consequences of CYP21 and NCAH)?
It isn’t illusion – most people just are not as smart as they like to think they are. Narcissism is rife.
Jews lead the feminist movement they were not simply followed. Jews also lead the the repeal of the Immigration Act. They lead the battle against Christianity; the battle against the family (evidence of their success can be seen in the latest cover of US Weekly) . The ideas were organized top down in Jewish intellectual institutions, one we know about, the Frankfurt School.
I try to look at the big picture which is why I give time to the theory that its economics (not ethnic warfare) that is driving change. However, if you cannot admit that it is Jews who have driven white America into its current state (PC, feminist, white guilt, anti-male, multiculturalism) then you’re entire premise is suspect.
It is Free Trade and Globalization that continue to throw me and for which I cannot presently blame the Jews; you should take a similarly humble stance on the areas where Jewish influence is obvious.
You appear to spend more time scrutizing what you think’s inside your head at the expense of what it’s inside of. That’s generally very bad (solipsistic) practice. Surely whether I (or anyone else) accepts or rejects your premise makes no difference to what’s empirically going on in the USA (and beyond across Liberal-Democracies?
Furthermore, you don’t appear to have commented on the NYC demographics. Instead you are arguing. Why? That’s what (feminised) Libertarians of the Austrian School etc tend to do (they are not empiricists). If the entire USA Libertarian political system turns out to be responsible for what’s currently going on, how can holding just a small proportion of the cognitive elite (i.e some Jewish people) to account help matters? Would it not be far better to look to some of their behaviours as representative of a wider problem, and make changes? After all, ‘history does not walk on its head’.
Ah, reverting to the condescension again I see. You didn’t address my argument. Your way or the highway David? If Jewish elite responsible for the state of the Western World, what is the point of focussing on libertarianism? Humility would sever you well – you have tunnel vision.
NYC demographics – what is the significance? I am supposed to have some eureka moment by looking at the stats? Just make the point; I don’t read minds.
“Sorry for the lengthy comment – but I do think it is worth contemplating on..”
Yes, it certainly is. Thank you for your insights and opinions, Betty Luks.
The helpful advice was to read the evidence provided in a repeatedely linked (BBC Wednesday, 19 September, 2007, comments 5 and 29), and to think about it in conjunction with this and what else has been posted. There’s only so much one can do.
I am more experienced in these matters than you are. You need to learn to show some respect. We are not all equals.
A while back you asserted that you were in a field which you subsequently revealed yourself (through your posts) to be woefully unfamiliar with.
You have now shown yourself to be equally unfamiliar with the rightful place of argument.
You appear to post here to waste both your own and other people’s time. As such behaviour is a sad sign of our times (and is testament to the poor state of our education systems), I strongly advise you not to take comfort from those who will be gleefully endorsing your behaviours, as that’s precisely how the (cognitive/epistemological) anarchism, to which I have frequently referred, destructively operates/seduces.
OK, so the author received secret documents, is that what he believes? I’m sorry but in all the verbal flourish, I am not sure what the point of the article is. The snippets of conversation displayed look like the kind of thing someone playing a prank on OO would give you. Surely, this is a prank. That is, if I understand what the article is about. Anyone else need clarification?
Colhaze is mixing dystopian satire ( J. G. Ballard) with analysis like Kurtagic (another central European named TOO author), these continentals can get very emotional, which can be very valuable when done in the right way.
Pace my detractors, I want to be positive about TOO, but affective potency of writing needs to be carefully weighted; a certain way of looking at things can be transmitted with an emotional style but when the actual facts are a matter of dispute emotion can be a limitation.
Good points. Logos is usually more important than ‘pathos’ when WRITING about controversial issues. Just take a look at Obama’s rhetoric. All is well when performed, but when one READS (analytically) what he actually said, it’s an OD of banalities and opaque promises. Far from impressive. Obviously, any text is, in a sense, vulnerable to analysis. Hence the primacy of logos (facts).
These oblique fairy tales aren’t worth the time it takes to read them. Not to belittle Rense.com, but that might be a better place for them.
You get to determine the content and form of your own utterances but not mine, OK ?
“[P]hysical and politically sovereign separation from Jews” is not an end in itself but a means, one which assumes that whites are no match for Jews. But if they can’t counteract the influence of Jewish interests how could whites ever hope to attain the political sovereignty which would be required for physical separation from Jews?; obviously they couldn’t.
I think whites can be a match for Jews so I don’t think it is necessary to expel jews from Western countries . And to be clear, if whites are so inherently vulnerable to the Jewish critique that they have to expel then we will never get anywhere near being able to do it.
If asked what the objective of TOO ought to be I would say ‘a future for white people’.
So this article is a form of satire? Sorry, I just wasn’t sure. Satire can certainly be effective.
I don’t think he endorses in any way the French revolution and its atrocities. Rather the opposite, right? Hence the leaks.
PS.
And it will be interesting to see if Mr. Assange releases the Swiss bank accounts he’s received recently. Maybe some, but many it won’t be I bet.
David; you are an obvious philosemite.
You judge by what you like and don’t like, which means you probably judge others the same way. Are we able to learn to discriminate what we think/believe/like, from what is in fact empirically the case? Do individual differences in this ability reflect different levels of brain-behaviour or intelligence? Are some levels of behaviour more difficult than others because of neophobia, and how might that bear on the HPA-Axis, the LC, CYP21 and ‘personality’ (see Gray’s rotation of Eysenck)?
Michael Colhaze writes:
“To give it a guise of legality, Sweden was approached, Sweden being a staunch ally ruled by an uneasy Marxist coalition of Pansies-cum-Sapphics who long since have made the pilgrimage to Canossa. And who spawn the most absurd excrescences of political correctness, like the sad descent of the once coveted Nobel Peace Prize into a farce of such magnitude that its conferment isn’t seen anymore as a honour, but a serious insult to the honour of any decent human being.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it, um, Norway, and not Sweden, that is responsible for the adjudication of Nobel prizes?
When David Longley wrote,
“Too many do not see the difference between what they think and what is actually the case. This is an important point, as I am highlighting something about metaphysical solipsism, a variant of narcissism, which is endemic today”,
he was speaking the truth.
The unreasonably large numbers of “thumbs down” votes his posts have received prove his point beyond argument. (For the record, I have sometimes joined that chorus for my own reasons.)
He can be long-winded. Obscure. Sometimes unable to see the forest for the trees and even vice versa…(smile)
But Mr. Longley, determinedly unaware of the impatient hostility demonstrated by his critics’ and opponents’ “thumbs down” judgment of his contributions, soldiers on – providing links to support his hypothesis and asking us to consider “the song, rather than the singer”. And, occasionally pointing out some awkward truths about the hard core cadre who reflexively shut him down no matter what he says.
And what’s with that?!? For the life of me, I don’t get it. What is it Mr. Longley is talking about that offends so many of you? I’m puzzled by the level of disapproval leveled against him here in the comments of the TOO.
Did he sleep with your ex-girlfriends or sumthin’ because nuthin’ leaps off the page at me that would warrant this level of hostility.
Clearly many don’t like what they read. Do they understand it? Do they not want to understand it? Do they not want others to understand it?
Arthur,
Perhaps it is that many of us are fed up with the hateful, anti-white opinions (propaganda) of jews – and their dupes – being slyly implanted in our minds via their media: their newspapers/magazines, their television, their book publishing industry, their Hollywood movies, their advertising industry, their state “education” system, etc, along with their bought-and-paid-for traitors in “our” demo.republi.crat governments.
They have not yet been completely successful in making it “their internet,” where the only voice heard will be theirs – not yet, but not for want of trying.
So, I for one am very much in favor of us being able to press the button and dump their poison in a cyber sewer whenever the rare opportunity presents itself.
What penalty did the jews impose on Christians who said things jews don’t want known about jews, once they had murdered the Tsar and took total control of Russia? The jew state murdered them, Arthur – utter statements (true or not) about jews the jew state of Communist Russia prohibited, and the penalty was death.
Arthur, if you are not a jew (who knows[?], but slipping that carnal aside in at the end of your comment is a bad sign) perhaps you should take note of that fact.
Finally, If I wish to absorb their anti-me messages, I’ll go out and buy a TV.
–
@ authurdecco …
IMHO David Longley usually — not always, but usually! — posts very compelling and ‘deep’ comments. Many have deserved only thumbs UP scores, which sadly they have failed to attract.
Where I would fault him is his failure to communicate. He has a habit of failing to compose his comments in such a way they can be more easily understood by his target audience. A failure in this area, I would venture, is why he has attracted so many thumbs down clicks.
A short while ago, I did post a comment (a reply) urging David Longley to author a full length article that could be reviewed by Prof MacDonald and subsequently published here at TOO. That way, I suggested, he could gain the additional room needed to develop his arguments properly, instead of glibly, within the confined space of a comment.
David Longley tends to employ terminology (jargon) that many TOO readers are either completely unfamiliar with, or disinterested in. I expect this habit irritates some people, which is another reason why too many of his comments have ended up being aggressively “hidden”.
David Longley! The objective is to post comments that invite others to comprehend. Therefore, the ball is in your court. You have to modify your presentation style. Even if only by a little.
Furthermore, it is never good to attempt to respond to everyone else’s comments. Others interpret this negatively; seeing it as a nuisance. Perhaps David Longley should reduce the quantity of his responses to a more reasonable figure. That way, people would be more inclined to pay attention to fewer comments that are of higher quality.
I hope this advice helps.
Angelsachse
The fact is that most posting here have something substantive to learn, and if they can’t be bothered to learn the required language, they won’t learn, it’s as simple as that, and it can’t be put in a clearer/easier language.
An awful lot of nonsense is being written to this blog which is a function of a combination of ignorance, poor intelligence, and decades of subversive equalitarianism which has led many to falsely believe that anyone can grasp material if only it’s put in the right way for them. This is simply false.
I suggest that you’re partially recognising that I’ve been posting some material here which is better researched/informed than most of what is posted, and that it’s not just personal opinion/ignorance.
Remember, equalitarianism is a subversive, right-wing Libertarian myth peddled in aid of consumerism. Large numbers of posters/readers here will never undrstand/accept this, as they are far too vain, something the peddling counts on and actively reinforces.
You are definitely making some irrational presumptions too. I suggest you look more closely into some of the research cited by MacDonald.
In the final analysis, people are more readily moved by their emotions, and less by well researched, rational arguments.
If you feel you are with friends here, then why are you doing your best to come across as haughty, and someone with an inflated sense of intellectual superiority?
Yes, I know it is. I was born and educated in the most subversive country in the world, therefore I do understand its source, even though it took until late in my life to see the light.
Where I differ with you is that I reject the terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’. They are no longer part of my model of the world. I have rejected them for many compelling reasons. Maybe you should too?
List them.
You are referring to large numbers of not very bright, largely ineducable, people.
Why would I consider people here friends? Most people posting here are anonymous and I don’t know the rest. You are evidently writing as a equalitarian/Libertarian whether you know this or not. So are many others.
Do you think everyone posting here equally able cognitively or equally qualified/competent to write on these matters? If so, why? Have you looked for any evidence (it is available) to substantiate or refute your presumptions, or have you just decided a priori to ignore all available evidence? If so, do you make a habit of doing this, and if so, what does that amount to? That is a prompt for you to examine your tacit preconceptions.
That establishes nothing except your current self-deception, which is bad for learning. You demonstrably do not have as much insight into your own behaviour as you believe. Take a cue from what I am telling you here as I’m illustrating my points by instantiation, and yes, it is painful, learning which is worth while generally always is. Reinforcing one’s preconceptions is generally just escape to a familiar (comfort zone), not learning at all.
@ Captain Chaos
“Oops. That comment was intended as a reply to Dweeb Engel’s sockpuppet “Anonyma” – TOO’s unofficial Jewish mascot.”
I’m sorry, Captain Chaos, you do me a grave injustice. I’m a new poster on this site and I don’t even know who “Dweeb Engel” is.
May I ask why you are so hostile to me?
Have I not pointed out a simple and undeniable truth: that Colhaze doesn’t seem to know which Scandinavian country hands out Nobel prizes?
If I am right to point this out, why attack me?
Is it because my style resembles the style of another poster called “Dweeb Engel” whom you happen to dislike?
I assure you on my word of honor, Captain Chaos, that I am NOT “Dweeb Engel”. This is the first time I’ve heard his/ her name mentioned.
thank you Betty of Adelaide for your great piece. Solzhenitsyn’s ” We are living your future.” Great.
Of course, S. is following the traditional Russian suspicion of the liberal West.
S. is a devout Christian. The Liberal West is NOT the West. However it is part of it. The lousy part of it, the modern and post-modern part of it.
Modernism crowed about liberalism, and post-modernism deconstructed it
but throws up its (jewish) hands and admits it is the default proper position.
No Answers po-mo leaves the Jews with a greenlight to do what Jews do.
White po-mos go to the coffee house, moan, and smoke dope. (That is good for the jews too.) Or , they become dentists.
The issue it seems to me, is to skip the transvaluation of values, whatever that means, and get real close to the biological imperatives of genetic similarity, etc. That must be the basis of a morality. Christian morality, as good as it often is, seems, finally, wrecked on the rock of Universalism. Which is another way of saying that the promiscuous altruism of Whites is supported by Christian values. That must stop.
I will re-read your post…it is worth it. Thanks. Joe Webb
why does “DICK” keep on saying “Wow!”. I can’t believe this is real.
I don’t like the opaque language of this guy’s article. If he had something real he would say it simply. What is his point? The jews are protecting Assaunge? Well than fucking say it already. I’m not sure I believe it but this guy is too verbose.
I appreciate the ratings system. It’s not “censorship,” since anyone who wants to can, with a mere mouseclick, see what’s said.
The system is of benefit for giving me less dross and dreck to scroll past.
Thanks, KMac, the perfect solution to a website that was previously careening out of control.
Yes, I agree with you absolutely. Here is what Gravitas has to say on the benefits of the new rating system:
“The thumbs up/thumbs down rating system is one of the best innovations this site has introduced.
For two reasons:
(1) The best posters are the ones who express most eloquently the thoughts that are dormant in the minds of most of the other posters who then show their approval of the post by a vote of confidence — a thumbs up.
(2) The worst posters are the ones who are going to get wiped off the page by votes of non-confidence in what they say. These posters are obviously alien intruders on this site. They don’t share the common assumptions and likes and dislikes of the MAJORITY of bona fide posters here. They are almost certain to be Zionist trolls.
The new rating system has been called a “self-policing device.” It’s much more than that. It’s a fantastic tool for troll identification.
The trolls had it easy before. Now they’re worried. They’re squirming around like bugs who’ve just been sprayed with insect repellent.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jewish supremacists like “Miriam K”, however, must be getting a perverse pleasure — almost a masochistic thrill — getting wiped off the page with FORTY down clicks.
To receive forty kicks up the ass is no mean feat!
I’m beginning to feel that posters who get regularly wiped off the page are secretly pleased at their negative status and notoriety. For a start, they must know their screened-from-view posts are being eagerly read…for who can resist clicking on a post that has the sign VERBOTEN hanging over it?
Pause for thought: have you, or anyone else, ever learned anything through having thoughts that are dormant in the mind” reinforced? Or is that just a description of the modus operandi of how prejudices are sustained? ;-)
Who can resist clicking on their tripe, Anonyma?
I can. Quite easily.
As mentioned above, if ever I have some perverse need to knowingly subject myself to jew poison I can go out and buy a TV, or stand in the crowd and listen to any one of “my” elected traitors.
–
Dearest History is Bunk,
Accusing me of being a Jew for asking why so many people are dumping on Mr. Longley’s posts is akin to being accused of being an anti-Semite for accurately describing the actions of Jews.
Is your faulty, belligerent faux-logic the result of a modern American education? Or simply the result of never having the opportunity to get that education in the first place?
…and can you tell me we have to puff up our chests with each other like this? What’s wrong with asking for clarification from those of us who may not have made themselves clear in their posted opinions?
…Rather than TELLING people what they think that is, like you have?
Arthur,
“Accusing me of being a Jew . . .”
Firstly, thank you for your critique, ad hominems and all.
Secondly, my intimation that you could be another jew troll, or another of their dupes, was rather mild I thought. My “. . . (who knows[?] . . .” is suggestive at worst, and at time of writing I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Still, if you wish to feel it is an accusation you are welcome to it.
This is the paragraph to which you refer:
“Arthur, if you are not a jew (who knows[?], but slipping that carnal aside in at the end of your comment is a bad sign) perhaps you should take note of that fact.”
So, who knows, indeed? You support via your comment one of the resident trolls; you finish with a sexual innuendo – so beloved of many trolls on other sites. If you eventually sink into scatology it will be game over for you, in my mind.
As for me being “belligerent” toward you, that also is a bit of a stretch.
What would you know of real belligerence, Arthur? Not much, most likely.
If you wish to read up on the subject of belligerence do some research into the suppressed facts of the murderous jew coup in Russia from 1917 onwards (which was related to my point in the post). Read up on the tens of millions of Christian men, women and children murdered by belligerent jews in Russia and Ukraine.
No, I was not belligerent toward you, Arthur. You could say in my post I was expressing mild belligerence toward jews in reaction to their decades of murderous belligerence towards my people. If you choose to take that personally it could well be strike three.
Who knows?
–
How much is true, how much is propaganda, and were Lenin and his anarchists just used to topple the Russian state? Isn’t what happened after 1928 what really matters for the West today given the powerful rise of Stalinist China?
What happened in 1917 and during the NEP had USA support, including DuPont and Ford. 1919 must have been a delicate time for Britain domestically given a large Jewish population in the East of London eager to support their people in Eastern Europe. But which people? How much would many of them have understood? There would have been non Jewish losses by other East Londoners as a result of Germany sending Lenin and his anarchists into Russia and getting Russia off their Eastern front/out of WWI, i.e more British and French troops would have been killed on the Western front. 1919 was also the year of The Balfour Declaration, and Lloyd-George later wrote in his memoirs this was a similar strategy to Germany’s using Lenin, but directed at the Germans’ ally, the Ottoman Empire. Surely it was when Russia/USSR went Stalinist that the USA’s position began to come under potential political-economic threat, just as it has again recently from China, the Islamic world (cf. N Africa) and SCO/BRIC, as at heart, they are not anarchists/Libertarians, but communitarians.
Mr. Colhaze – your articles are an absolute treasure!
What’s the difference between a dead banker on the road and a dead cat? Answer: skid marks around the cat.
A joke on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show today.
‘Bankers’, who or what comprise the class ‘bankers’, and how can their behaviours be regulated across Libertarian Liberal-Democracies given that their behaviours all but effectively define Liberal-Democracy.
So long as irrational anti-Semitism prevails and is given a general thumbs up whilst rational critique of more general self-destructive narcissistic behaviour (i.e. right-wing Libertarianism) is given a thumbs down, blogs such as this are likely, sadly, to serve the interests of a) Zionists, and b) others eager to dismiss the demonstrable dysgenesis and numerical demographic demise of Liberal-Democratic populations. What people aren’t aware of, they’re less likely to collectively mitigate.
Too many people here are busy shooting themselves and each other in both feet, and it’s happening everywhere.
That’s individualism. That’s Libertarianism.
I’m curious. You write
“So long as irrational anti-Semitism prevails”
Did you perhaps mean “prevalent”? And just what is “irrational anti-Semitism”? Stupid people hold opinions for stupid reasons, the opinions may be sound for all that. And it is at least arguable that what the remnants of our nations need is more antisemitism.
@ Someday
[Quoting Someday]
Anonyma, I was actually taking issue with Colhaze’s attitude.
Calhaze: “Using a fairly recent law that has a healthy man’s balls cut off if he dares to wink so much as an eye at one of those long-legged Swedish blondes, poor Mr. Assange has been accused of tricking an undercover hooker.”
First of all, most women in Sweden are not blonde; there has never been an ethnic group which was all blonde.
Why mention the color of her hair in connection with her sexual behavior? He actually calls her an “undercover whore”. Is this nationalism? No, it is one more reversal of the traditional culture of the West by Jewish culture.
Colhaze again: “In the mid-nineteenth century, golden hair became an attribute of the pure and innocent maiden, while dark hair suggested the woman of passion and experience.”
Colhaze is endorsing a Jewish stereotype of what blondes are like, one which has no basis in reality and demeans our women.
I have been too harsh on some articles and I really wanted to be generous to this one. However, if some things can’t be passed over in silence, once mentioned they’re up for debate…
[END OF SOMEDAY'S POST]
Excellent post, Someday, you get a thumbs-up from me. I can’t say I disagree with anything you say here….except the bit at the end (which I left out) about “conspiracy theories”.
You dismiss all these as kooky and unworthy of our attention. You would like to see any discussion of 9-11 “conspiracy theories” banned from this site. The Protocols, in your opinion, are a “forgery”. Any discussion of them must also be banned — unless of course one is prepared to take the Jewish attitude to the Protocols and denounce them as cheap trick cooked up by anti-Semites to make Jews look bad. Poor Jews.
I resent the implication that all of us who take these “conspiracy theories” seriously, including thousands of high-powered academics and scientists all over the world, are just a bunch of raving lunatics.
However, no need to go into all that now. Enough of conspiracy theories.
One final point.
I have nothing against a bad writer or a lousy article being criticized on this site.
If you were to do this, I would not automatically accuse you of being a Zionist troll.
If an article is substandard in the view of most of its readers, then I think it’s only right and fair to point this out, preferably in a way that is not too hurtful to the writer in question.
What I am against, however, is the constant refrain from Zionist trolls on this site that EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE published here is garbage. That it is substandard. And that Professor MacDonald should sack all his writers and start from scratch.
A Zionist troll actually suggested this a few weeks ago.
Can you imagine anything more hurtful and morale-destroying to the writers on this site, many of whom are writing for Kevin MacDonald without being paid a single cent?
When you read a good article, Someday, you should praise it. Give the writer his due. Be fair to him. Don’t vilify him as a matter of principle and make him feel small.
Is that too much to ask?
“Can you imagine anything more hurtful and morale-destroying to the writers on this site, many of whom are writing for Kevin MacDonald without being paid a single cent?”
Yes, how about someone repeatedly pointing out the mechanism whereby dysgenic Libertarian Liberal-Democracies have been populating themselves with useful-idiots (who are determined to keep making it worse for themselves and everyone else)?
Sorry, but now that you’ve mentioned it there is a need. As I have already pointed out some top scientists were champions of spiritualism when it was in vogue. Leading clerics insisted spiritualists were frauds. Now just knowing that some false flag 9/11ers are scientists does not tell me much.
The Occidental Observer’s credibility is more important to me than hurting people’s feelings, some assertions which I do not agree with can easily be passed over in silence in a spirit of good comradeship; others require a great deal of forbearance and I just give them a thumbs down. Certain assertions will always merit comment. Meaning: if you don’t want to be called on it – don’t mention it.
Anonyma
As to the balls cut off, I seem to remember they have a law to the effect that if a man accepts or even responds to an invitation from a hooker, he’s committed a crime and not the girl. So I’ve just peppered it up a little. This is after all only a satire, a piddle against our adversary’s expensive trouser legs. Not everybody likes it, since you need a bit of humour and sophistication to appreciate it. But quite a few do, actually. As to your quote “In the mid-nineteenth century, golden hair became an attribute of the pure and innocent maiden, while dark hair suggested the woman of passion and experience…” I never wrote it. I’ve have even never heard it. But I will certainly use it sooner or later, because it is very beautiful for both sides involved. And it is certainly much older than the mid-nineteenth century. On the other hand, “endorsing a Jewish stereotype of what blondes are like, one which has no basis in reality and demeans our women” , is about one of the saddest and ugliest comments I’ve ever read on this site.
Anonyma indeed.
TU QUOQUE.
If people want satire, presumably they’ll watch the likes of The Daily Show or South Park, which are just two of the vehicles of modern Libertarian subversion in my view. It doesn’t require much intelligence to sneer, but lamentably many have been encouraged to accept that it is clever behaviour. It’s a classic devaluation stategy used by narcissists, especially women.
Anonyma does not use the reply button so his replies are confusingly delocalized from the comment he is talking about, moreover they use a very convoluted style which causes further confusion. He was quoting from my comment, which itself contained quotes which were not from your article here is my 1st comment . (This is my 6th on this page).
@ Michael Colhaze
You’ve got it all wrong. I never attributed any quotes to you that you claim not to have written. The entire passage you object to was a cut-and-paste quote of an entire post written by “Someday”.
I even ended that section with the words “End of Someday’s post”.
So if you have grievance, it is with “Someday” — not with me.
In any case, I am not concerned with attacking you personally. Nor did I do so in that post even once — except in so far as I agreed with “Someday” on what he had to say about Swedish blondes, and the fact that they were unfairly stigmatized as “whores” for no other reason than that they happen to be blonde and stunningly attractive.
Anyway, apologies for annoying you. It was not intentional. I was simply quoting someone else.
@ Someday
Anonymus = male gender
Anonyma = female gender
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Michael Colhaze
“On the other hand, “endorsing a Jewish stereotype of what blondes are like, one which has no basis in reality and demeans our women” , is about one of the saddest and ugliest comments I’ve ever read on this site. Anonyma indeed.”
Okay, so why go for me? Isn’t that final “Anonyma indeed” a sneer of contempt?
Did I write the comment in quotation marks you object to so strongly? No, I did not!
Did I attribute the same comment to YOU? No, I did not!
So what’s your problem exactly? What are kicking up such a fuss about?
Don’t apologise. Learn
Longley, you are impossible. You are either a genius or a maniac. Which?
@ Ms. Anonyma …
“David Longley” may well turn out to be an Indian ‘genius’ (i.e., from the Sub-Continent and not from a Tee-Pee) … which is just another way of saying he’s a maniac.
Someone needs to take down these graphics of a jewish squid smothering the capitol. Look it justs offensive.
Feb. 3, 2011
Jimmy Carter being sued for “defamation of Israel” this is not a joke:
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/03/jimmy-carter-sued-for-5-million-for-criticism-of-israel/
Excerpt:
In a move that calls back to the attempt by Texas cattlemen to sue Oprah Winfrey for “defamation of beef.” an Israeli lawyer has filed a class-action lawsuit against former President Jimmy Carter, seeking $5 million in damages because his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” allegedly defamed Israel.
Now, can you understand what I am going through?
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?