A Flat, Gray, Silent World: How PC and Minority-Worship Cripple the Intellect

One of the strangest and cleverest books I’ve ever read is Edwin A. Abbott’s Flatland, a Victorian fantasy first published in 1884. It’s about what happens when two worlds collide. One is our own three-dimensional world. The other is a literally two-dimensional world called Flatland, where there are only two dimensions to move in: north-south and east-west. There’s no up-down in Flatland, because there’s no third dimension.

They can’t think in 3D

The inhabitants of Flatland, known as Flatlanders, are living geometric shapes like triangles, squares and circles. They can perceive only in two dimensions and our three-dimensional world is impossible for them to imagine or understand. Flatlanders see a 3D object passing through their world as a series of infinitely thin slices, so to them a cube can look like a square or a triangle or even a hexagon, depending on how it’s orientated. And they can’t understand how human fingers, which look to them like a disconnected series of fleshy circles, can be part of a single, undivided hand.

In short, solidity baffles them. Abbott wanted his readers to see that we humans live in a Flatland of our own. After all, if 2D is flat to a 3D being, then 3D will be flat to a 4D being. Flatlanders can’t see or understand three dimensions of space and we can’t see or understand four. But Abbott wasn’t just writing a very clever mathematical fantasy: he was satirizing Victorian politics and culture. For example, the more sides Flatlanders have, the higher their status: triangles are lowly and circles are exalted. And so arbitrary geometry determines one’s position in life.

Forbidden to perceive reality

That’s a liberal idea, of course, but Flatland could easily be updated as a right-wing satire on the modern West. The point of an update would be this: We’re 3D, but we’re forbidden to think in 3D. Instead, we have to inhabit an intellectual Flatland, a flat, gray, silent world of political correctness and minority worship. Abbott’s original Flatlanders had hearing and colour vision, at least. We don’t have those things in our politics. When we look at the world, we have to turn most of our senses off and stop using reason and logic. We’re forbidden to see unity where it really exists, because the High Priests of PC tell us that phenomena like non-White failure and non-White genetics are entirely separate and unrelated. At the same time, we’re commanded to see unity where it doesn’t exist. “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race!” “Gender is a social construct!” “Whites and Non-Whites, Men and Women are entirely interchangeable!”

And some parts of the real world are strictly off-limits to us twenty-first-century Flatlanders in New Flatland. The Scruton affair, which I discussed in “A Philosopher Falls,” is a good example of how important and closely connected facts float off into an inaccessible hyper-realm. In early April 2019 Sir Roger Scruton, whom some call the greatest living conservative philosopher, was sacked from a government committee for the alleged thought-crimes of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism. Scruton himself and his many supporters have continued to bewail the unfairness and injustice of what happened to him. As Scruton wrote in a neo-conservative and highly philo-Semitic magazine called Standpoint: “Heretics like me should not be silenced by mobs.” But Scruton isn’t a genuine heretic or free-thinker, because he’s writing from New Flatland and certain facts go entirely unmentioned in his article. He doesn’t refer to Jews or his own alleged anti-Semitism even once, let alone discuss the Board of Jewish Deputies and its direct role in his sacking. And what about Lord Finkelstein and Tom Tugendhat, two prominent Jewish “Conservatives” who immediately joined the left-wing “mob” and its heresy-hunt?

Censoring censorship

No, Scruton doesn’t say a word about those two. Instead, he muses on the aetiology and epistemology of censorship:

One way to silence argument is by the invention of thought crimes, which are so vaguely defined that anybody can be accused of them. We thereby seal off areas of inquiry with a warning notice, saying “enter at your peril”. In my view the thought crime of Islamophobia, which [George] Eaton [the left-wing journalist who began the heresy-hunt] tries to pin on me (along with the other isms and phobias of our time), has precluded discussion of the most important issue facing European societies today. (“Heretics like me should not be silenced by mobs,” Standpoint, 25th April 2019)

Scruton is wrong. Muslim immigration isn’t the most important issue facing European societies today. In fact, the most important issue is that of Jewish power and its effects. But Scruton himself has “sealed off” that “area of inquiry.” He’s censored his own discussion of censorship. For example, who was behind the “invention of thought crimes”? And what “thought crime” was the forerunner of Islamophobia and the direct model for it? Scruton doesn’t discuss any of that, because the answers don’t fit into New Flatland. However, the then Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was much more honest in 2007, when he described the origins of identity politics and heresy-hunting like this:

Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

According to Jonathan Sacks, “the process began with Jews.” He’s right and he’s also right that “blacks, women and gays” have followed the Jewish lead. So have Muslims. But heresy-hunting Muslims aren’t merely imitating Jews: they’re working with direct Jewish assistance. The Jewish heresy-hunter Richard Benson, who formerly headed the Community Security Trust (CST), is now working with the Muslim heresy-hunters at Tell MAMA. (MAMA stands for Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks.)

Trailblazers of heresy-hunting

Fiyaz Mughal of Tell MAMA welcomed Mr Benson’s arrival at his organization with these words: “CST has been the trailblazer in recording hate crime for the Jewish community and has set the benchmark. Richard spent 12 years building CST and his governance, leadership and support will take Tell Mama through its founding stages to a much higher level, and build confidence with the public.” In short, Fiyaz Mughal agrees with Jonathan Sacks that “the process began with Jews.” The Jewish CST have been the “trailblazer” in the invention of thought-crimes and have “set the benchmark” for the hunting-down of heretics like Scruton.

A possible future prime minister: Sajid Javid grovels at CFI

And when Scruton complained that thought-crimes are “so vaguely defined that anybody can be accused of them,” why didn’t he mention the very vague definition of “anti-Semitism” created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance? It states that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” This definition has been officially adopted by the Conservative party, whose Chairman is a rich Jew called Lord Feldman and whose Chief Executive is another rich Jew called Sir Mick Davis. Ambitious gentile Tories like Sajid Javid and Priti Patel know that they have to grovel long and hard before Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), which the Jewish Chronicle has described as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.”

Who’s a good goy?

The Tory minister who sacked Roger Scruton is called James Brokenshire, which is a perfect name for a traitorous British politician. Bipartisan support for mass immigration has been breaking the shires of England, Scotland and Wales since shortly after World War II. James Brokenshire himself seems to be a gentile lawyer, but he has a Jewish wife and his goy-grovel is impressive even by Tory standards. In the House of Commons he has grovelled thus: “antisemitism has no place in our society — however it evolves, it is still hatred and bigotry — and we should not be afraid to call it out and to champion our Jewish community, which continues to make a towering contribution to our society without reservation. Indeed, Britain would not be what it is without our Jewish friends, neighbours and cousins.” And in a speech at Conservative Friends of Israel, he has grovelled thus: “In my role as Communities Secretary I’ve seen first-hand how important the contribution of the Jewish community across the United Kingdom is. Whether through community housing, providing education or even emergency services such as Hatzola, the Jewish community is a cherished and an essential part of what makes Britain great.”

Grovelling goy James Brokenshire

Brokenshire is praising the “contribution” of Jews to other Jews, not to Britain as a whole. For example, Hatzola or Hatzalah (Hebrew for “rescue”) is an ambulance service staffed by Jews for Jews in places like London and New York (where it was involved in the Crown Heights Riot of 1991 after allegedly helping an injured Jew and ignoring two Black children injured in the same accident). According to James Brokenshire part of what “makes Britain great” is the presence of Jews working exclusively for Jews. Which simultaneously means working against Whites and against Christianity, of course. Brokenshire is a shameless shabbos goy who will grovel before Jews as hard and as often as it takes to maintain his political career. That’s why he sacked Roger Scruton: “A Board of [Jewish] Deputies spokesperson said: ‘As soon as we saw Roger Scruton’s unacceptable comments we contacted the government to make our concerns heard. We are satisfied the right decision has been made to dismiss him.’”

Not a great philosopher

From the perspective of Roger Scruton and his supporters, the Board of Deputies is “satisfied” that a blatant injustice has taken place. The Board of Deputies is also “satisfied” that argument has been silenced by the invention of vaguely defined thought-crimes and that vital areas of inquiry have been sealed off from scrutiny. But Scruton and his supporters don’t breathe a word of criticism against the Board of Deputies (see here, here, here, here and here). And they don’t criticize Lord Finkelstein and Tom Tugendhat as representatives of mainstream Jewish opinion and activism. After all, Scruton and his supporters live in New Flatland, where Jewish power, influence and ideology can’t be discussed or even mentioned.

That’s why I don’t agree that Scruton is a great philosopher or an effective conservative. A great philosopher should be someone who can transcend his own times and proclaim truths that others don’t see or refuse to mention. The truth in the Scruton affair is that he was sacked on Jewish orders in accordance with Jewish ideology. Scruton himself won’t admit this. Nor will he admit that Jews like Lord Finkelstein and the Board of Deputies actually approve of innocent people being condemned and punished for “anti-Semitism.” Voltaire joked that the English “execute an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.” Such behaviour isn’t a joke for Jews: it’s a highly effective political strategy. They punish “anti-Semites” from time to time to frighten anyone who might think of discussing Jewish power.

Jews decide, goyim obey

And from the Jewish perspective, an obviously innocent victim is even better than a supposedly guilty one. Why so? Because the injustice proves that Jews don’t have to obey any rules or follow any logic. Or rather, it proves that they make their own rules and that goyim have to obey. According to an Israeli newspaper, Jews in Britain “overwhelmingly back” the present Conservative government. Obviously, then, they shouldn’t be supporting a subversive, pro-immigration, anti-Christian leftist like George Soros against a right-wing traditionalist like Roger Scruton.

But so-called conservative Jews do support Soros against Scruton, because in fact they are leftist, pro-immigration and anti-Christian just like Soros. Furthermore, by punishing criticism of Soros they are helping to protect their own subversion and corruption. All these things are obvious in the Scruton affair, but only to those who are prepared to use all of their senses and wits. Sir Roger and his supporters aren’t prepared to do that. They live in New Flatland, a flat, gray, silent world where discussion of Jewish power is forbidden. At best, the Scrutopians are doing nothing effective to defend the West. At worst, they’re complicit in what Jews and their imported allies are doing to destroy the West. When the history of the early twenty-first century comes to be written, they will not be its heroes and its heresiarchs but its dupes and its Wormtongues.

29 replies
  1. Jack Waddington
    Jack Waddington says:

    Cute argument, but not definitive enough for me. Three dimensions are in space, but not in time, thus it was assumed the fourth dimension was time. that is a three-dimensional object moving through time. BUT is time linear? one dimensional? It could be said time is actually in-and-of-itself. is two or even three dimensional …. and so we keep creeping further and further up our own ass holes (black holes).

    In the end, it’s all words and words, in spite of dictionaries, are ambiguous. Go figure. Jack Waddington.

    • Saxon Warrior
      Saxon Warrior says:

      I guess “Jewish” influence is not “definitive” for you either, fella?

    • Jack McArthur
      Jack McArthur says:


      As best I know the earliest surviving written records regarding linear (djet) and cyclical (neheh) time are from Ancient Egypt. The cartouche which surrounds a King’s hieroglyphic name is thought to be an elongated version of the hieroglyph for a shen ring. I have often wondered if the circle touching the straight line which forms that glyph alludes to both forms of what we think of as time.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      it’s all words and words, in spite of dictionaries, are ambiguous

      Wow. What an original notion.

      Perhaps for the benefit of the simple-minded like me, you’d be good enough to point out one single element, item or syllable of Mr Langdon’s entire essay or theme which could ever conceivably be construed by anyone with normal intelligence as “ambiguous” ?

      Thought not.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “In the end, it’s all words and words, in spite of dictionaries, are ambiguous.”

      Worse, since words in and of themselves have no meaning or reference, they aren’t even ambiguous. In the end, there’s just us using words.


      “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      Good thoughts, Jack. Here are some hypotheses I developed in my youth, with the help of a Finnish astrophysicist whose name I have now forgotten. And, please note, a lower dimension can only experience movement through at least the next higher one.
      a) a point is a defining being. It defines existences.
      b) square a point, and you get a line (first dimension).
      c) square a line and you get a plane (second dimension).
      d) square a plane and you get volume (third dimension).
      e) square volume and you get linear time (fourth dimension).
      f) square linear time and you get expansive time (e.g. – where time travel can be possible – fifth dimension).
      g) square expansive time and you get living time (collapsing and expanding time; e.g. – where flesh and blood can survive interstellar travel – sixth dimension).
      h) square the sixth dimension and you get love, and God is Love, and we humans really do not understand that yet. Not me, anyway.

    • James
      James says:

      What is definitive is the fact that Edom is in modern jewry, not Jacob Israel! Once you can wrap your brain around that dimension everything falls into place.

      John 8:44

    • Chris M
      Chris M says:


      What a condescending (cute argument) vulgar (ass holes (black holes)) and pretentious comment.

      In your anxiousness to show off your ability to grasp an argument you’re blind to the more important fact that you totally missed the point of the article.

      A better example of penetrating silliness would be impossible to imagine.

  2. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    I’d be cautious about the interpretation of Edwin Abbott Abott’s Flatland. Among the many dimensions to which the subtitle of the book alludes are those even greater than 4D, especially considering the illusory “time and space” delineations we draw! I read the book as part of a high school class on geometry (!), not philosophy or sociology. I think the book has more to do with the domain of Kevin MacDonald’s expertise!

    I have no doubt whatsoever that Miles Mathis would make very short work of the genealogy of EAA. His Wikipedia entry speaks volumes about his privileged upbringing and likely tribal membership. I would always defer to MM for that, though.

    My thoughts: Edwin Abbott Abbott (his parents were first cousins, a clue from Wikipedia) may actually have wittingly achieved two goals: (1) describe how one indeed reduces “degrees of freedom” (a mathematical conception, here a metaphor of human existence), where “one” in this case is the Reducer, the “other” being the Reducee; and (2) misdirects attention from the Divine, in which many more dimensions than you and I can label co-exist in infinite harmony, as before, and now, and forevermore. Sat Nam.

    • Dave Bowman
      Dave Bowman says:

      1) Miles Mathis will always struggle to command a following among the “intelligent”-sia (the clue is in the name), as the prurient habits and challenging attitudes of arrogant, pretentious, narcissistic and profoundly closed-minded paedophile perverts tend for the most part to put normal people off.

      2) Would you be kind enough to provide some element of proof that “many more dimensions than you and I can label co-exist in infinite harmony” ?

      [Mod. note: Please try to keep things civil, Mr B.]

  3. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Brilliant work, Mr Langdon! Thank you. Yours are truly the undaunted views of a brave and highly intelligent man. Quite clearly, Professor Sir Roger Scruton is not the man he promised to be when he was a dashing young philosopher known fondly in the philosophy world as ‘Roger Scruton’. True, even then Scruton did not buy into dangerous territories like antisemitism, colour, etc. But at the time, such concepts were pretty well beneath the attention of mainstream philosophy.

    The change I noticed in Professor Sir Roger Scruton came, if I recall correctly, only early in the 2000s, and he had been loud and clear among us since the 1980s at least. A little before the Noughties, he had written a first-class essay that savaged the WHO, or more specifically, its Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, for failing to publish the research of the specialist in lung diseases whom she had commissioned to observe the effects on health of smoking. Why the WHO failed to publish, Scruton told us, was this:

    Scruton defended, the rights of smokers, albeit amusingly, and admitted that he is himself a moderate smoker. And he pointed out that the WHO-chosen researcher had confirmed all the known drawbacks for health of smoking. But Scruton revealed the sore point too: The same researcher had recorded his curious finding that the risk of Alzheimer’s among smokers is 53% lower than among non-smokers. With huge indignation, Scruton accused that this finding is why the researcher’s report was never published by the WHO. And he roundly condemned the dishonesty that would stoop to hide inconvenient/non-PC information from the public:

    Dr Grutland, the Flatlander top honcho at the WTO at the time, simply caused the lung-disease specialist researcher’s report to disappear; she declined to publish it. Scruton railed against the dishonesty of this behaviour. His essay on the subject was on the internet (his web site, I think) for a few years. Then the great Spectator published it. But … the ‘53% less chance of Alzheimer’s’ was just left out of the published article! Scruton had capitulated. So much for Scruton. A man who will bend with the winds of opportunity is no truth seeker, and ipso facto no real philosopher.

  4. Jud Jackson
    Jud Jackson says:

    Great Article. My high school trigonometry teacher mentioned Abbot’s book and I read it many years ago and really loved it. I will try to re-read it.

    Scruton is obviously a sharp guy but maybe not a great philosopher, as you say. Are there any great 20th century philosophers in your opinion? Perhaps Bertrand Russell, W. V. Quine, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger? I would be very interested in hearing your opinion about who is or isn’t a great philosopher.

  5. John McArthur
    John McArthur says:

    Many people who have undergone a conversion experience describe what seems like a new dimension which was always present but they had never percieved.

    If Scruton was entirely open about Jewish domination in the unholy trinity of money, politics and the media he would be marginalised so completely that this maybe limits his heroism.

    To be a hero for just one day. Not with bullet or bomb but with a truthful tongue that has no Forbidden Zone when it comes to confronting the politics of the asylum where truth is determined by the laws of bought and paid politicians and the insane. So called Holocaust denial is encouraged and not defeated by laws.

    I only came to this site when I discovered that the people whom I had mourned for most of my adult life, for whom my father was imprisoned (through defending Maurice Abelman his Jewish friend), were the same people who without mercy bullied and destroyed anyone who dared stand up for the good.

    • Jack McArthur
      Jack McArthur says:

      I should have posted under Jack McArthur to avoid confusion with a another notable person.

  6. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    “antisemitism has no place in our society — however it evolves, it is still hatred and bigotry..”
    Yet another example of how Jews have corrupted our language. Hatred used to be the opposite of love, an all consuming emotion. Now it means disapproval. Bigotry (from the French bigoterie) used to be intolerance of differing opinions. Now it means unfounded intolerance and racism.
    When dictionaries start changing definitions to support political agendas you know that Henry Ford’s ” it doesn’t matter if it’s a forgery, it fits what is happening now” comment about the Protocols even clearer.
    We are up the proverbial creek, not only without paddles, but in a leaky canoe.

  7. Alfred
    Alfred says:

    Another good write by Mr Langdon

    The END is closer than I thought it was…
    Mr Johnson is talking about anyone who questions the direction the US is taking.

    Kansas shootings add to concerns over ex-military and extremism in U.S., experts say
    Judy L. Thomas April 30, 2019 02:57 PM
    Daryl Johnson, a former senior analyst with the Department of Homeland Security:
    “If you support or embrace or go online or join a forum or whatever, there should be zero tolerance.”

    And don’t think, FOR A SECOND, that Trump and House and Senate would not do this, and, sooner or later, THEY WILL.
    Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Demands Anti-Semitism be Made Illegal in America
    Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon.

    Jerusalem Post:
    The only way to stop antisemitism is to criminalize it, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon told reporters in New York on Monday.

    “The time for talking and having a conversation is over,” Danon said. “What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demand is action – and now.”

    Danon, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations Security Council meeting, said that those who engage in antisemitism “must be punished. Whether it is here at the UN [or by] political leaders, editors, policy pundits or college professors, it does not matter.

    “Antisemitism should have no place in our society,” he continued. “Until it becomes criminal, this bigotry will persist; it will fester. It is only a matter of time until it erupts again in violence and bloodshed.”

    And let us not forget the recent declaration by this “Czar” that anti-semites in the USA are the ENEMY, my goodness no subtlety here the State Department’s appointment of a czar to fight anti-Semitism,

    Anti-Semitism Bill for Florida Public Schools That Bans Criticizing Jewish Power

    A bill prohibiting anti-Semitism in Florida’s public schools and universities is going to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    The Senate unanimously passed the bill Monday, two days after a gunman opened fire in a California synagogue, killing one and injuring three others.

    The anti-Semitism definition also includes expressing hatred for Jews, calling for the killing or harming of a Jewish person, criticizing the collective power of the Jewish community, or accusing Jewish people or Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

    So TOO readers books such as the following which are BANNED by booksellers will be CRIMINAL OFFENSES. Also EX POST FACTO laws will undoubtedly be passed in the future as the Self-Chosen seek to out do the sixty-eight million they slaughtered in Russia.

    This website is owned by Dr Arthur Butz of Northwestern University look him up on Wikipedia.
    This is his groundbreaking book THE HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
    read it while you still can:

  8. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    Living in the Rust Belt’s St Louis (pronounced sant loos by the local native inbreds) BTW The Most Dangerous Region in America due to it’s large African population, the region is a complete failure because it’s unable to moved beyond the 1970’s an era in which it peaked and started its steady decline. In the 1970’s Unions were strong. If you were in the union you got pay raises for doing the shoddiest work you could. You came to work drunk and/or high. You got in to fist fights regularly and frequently were seen sporting a black eye or facial cuts and abrasions. You drove drunk and/or high and your vehicle had many dents from your drunken driving. Public housing was in full on warehouse mode and because of blacks most were destroyed and burned to the ground within years of them having been built. Rock music became loud, abusive and encouraged Whites to be immoral and in to drug abuse. jooz launched porn with huge financial success in the 1970’s. Porn actors if you can call the animals that became Superstars for the act of fornication. The entire welfare systems of freebies and unionization flourished and became a permanent part of the social fabric. No doubt it Baby Boomers and the 1970’s were the full on mudslide. Sure the 1960’s were the start of the Cultural Warfare (not revolution as the jooz called it). It was a full on assault on decent Christian Whites and the jooz catapulted to the top of the financial heap in the 1970’s and stayed there.

    The 1970’s the era that Whites wax sentimental about the most. Rather than focus on what it does right, Whites are trained to be proudest of when the jooz first started teaching them to be immoral, lazy and useless.

  9. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Flatland is a book that is recommendable to anyone capable of appreciating wit and subtlety and with a rudimentary knowledge of what a point, a line, a circle, and various polygons are. Yet whether the book is fully adequate to the metaphoric demands Mr. Langdon is making of it in his detailed and thoughtful account of the consequences of Jewish-enforced thought censorship is a matter where reasonable men might differ.

    Yet what seems certain is that complaints of insufficient “definitiveness” (whatever that is) from a man who hasn’t read the book and of resort to the argumentum ad Mathis from another ought to be taken, not as reprobation, but as ironic recommendation for Mr. Langdon’s essay to those hereabouts who, like me, think that reflective assessment and analysis still serve a useful purpose, however imperfect the metaphoric devices that generate them.

  10. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    Whether it is 2D, 3D or 4D, it does not matter, what is really valuable is that the enemy is identified, the next phase is to create a strategy to weaken and eradicate it.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      The jooz have known that the final resistance was coming and have had plenty of time to harden their facilities and have used countless billions of White taxpayer money to do it. Most known have explosion and bullet proof glass, hardened doors and windows, metal detectors and wanding security guards……. They know what they’ve done but WON’T be held accountable.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        They have defenses against conventional weapons. Then use something different.

        White support for jews and the system may be our biggest problem. Christian Zionists need to know about the jew-sponsored [Untermyer] Scofield Bible.
        Being another jew book it is also Communist, according to Rabbi Weiss. [Some call it Communism, I call it Judaism].

        The paper money problem must be faced squarely. The existing system cannot be modified- we need to drop out to our own system- barter, modifed barter, precious metals [coins] and so on. So far any attempts to extricate from the system have failed- if you want to buy crude in international markets you can only use the
        (((federal reserve not))).

  11. B. Wilson
    B. Wilson says:

    Group A has no duty to serve and be enslaved by Group B. Whites have no duty to let any non-Whites whatsoever enter their countries.

    Letting non-Whites enter your country is suicide.

    All non-Whites must be evicted. If they are so wonderful, then they ought to be glad to live in their own countries.


    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Group A has “No Duty” but it has been enslaved through other means. IF snowflakes are NOT destroyed there is no way to stop the genocide of Whites from the face of the Earth. You can not have usurpers within your own tribe serving the warlords of another tribe.

  12. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Sine many people have been allowed to ramble in the commentary I reckon I am able to do the same.

    This “…point > line > flat and then cubic geometric shapes > time…” as separate dimensions from 1 to 4 may in itself be flawed.
    The state of pure Spiritual Quantum-Gravimetric Existence, is absent of a flesh and blood brain to think with, so the concept of time does not register on the “radar”.

    Time is a mental construct applied to the measurement,
    by increment-alization of the passage of “…something…”, that is itself infinite and therefore immeasurable.

    Why a point should be considered a dimension when it is itself a line, albeit a small one, by any other name is beyond me.


    [Mod. comment: When people make a habit of rambling, they should unlearn the habit. It does not look for TOO to host paragraph after paragraph of free association, particularly when the punctuation is unorthodox.]

  13. Sutter
    Sutter says:

    This article makes a pretty solid rebuttal of the apology of “The Rebbe” from twitter, who now goes by (((Hot Takes))),.

    He consistently makes the argument that left-wing Jews are an American phenomenon that came about by a very charismatic leftist Rabbi in the early 20th century who converted Jews to liberal ideas. He consistently claims that Jews in many European countries are hardcore conservatives, and also that right-wing Jews are big leaders in right-wing movements around the world.

    The rebuttal of this article is that Jews of Britain are really not at all right-wing, they are liberals who simply support the British conservative party because it is itself hopelessly cucked and determined to replace the British people. In fact, cucked right-wing leaders are better for the Jews, because they feel that the right-wing citizens will be more distracted and fooled into accepting the anti-white policies if they are wrapped in a nice, “conservative” package.

Comments are closed.