The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Jonathan Revusky Archive
Faith, Reason, Fanaticism, and the Deeper Meaning of "The Donald"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
The "New Atheism"---Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.  CC by-SA 4.0
The "New Atheism"---Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. CC by-SA 4.0

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em

Perhaps the greatest historical archetype when we think about religious fanaticism and intolerance is the Spanish Inquisition, in particular the fearsome figure of Tomás de Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor.

The historical backdrop is that, in the wake of the Reconquista, centuries of back-and-forth conflict between Muslims and Christians, the Christians eventually regained control of all of Spain; the last Muslim stronghold, Granada fell in 1492. As Christianity gained the upper hand, many people who were formerly Muslims or Jews decided to become Christians. However, it was widely believed that many (most?) of these conversions were not sincere, but rather, made for reasons of expediency.

Now, when you look at this problem in a more general way, it is hardly unique to 15th century Spain. If a religion is established as the dominant religion and it is understood that there are great practical advantages to belonging to it, surely you’re going to have a lot of insincere conversions. I have no idea who originated the English saying “If you can’t beat them, join them”, but the concept has been well understood for a long, long time. Thus, it stands to reason that, had things turned out differently, with a Muslim victory, many Christians would have converted to Islam, and in that case, by and large, those conversions would have been about as sincere as the ones that actually did happen in the other direction.

Moreover, the basic principle operating here does not apply solely to religious affiliation, but to any ideology or set of dogmas that becomes dominant. So we can safely reason that not everybody who was a member of the communist party in the Soviet Union really believed in the communist ideology. Granted, you had your true believers, the real fanatics, but also plenty of people who proclaimed their belief and joined the Party because it was the expedient thing to do.

A True Believer?

Here is a fascinating video snippet from a talk given by the award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill. In the Q&A session, Scahill is asked a question about 9/11 Truth.

This video snippet is only a minute long, but it is such a bizarre piece of doubletalk (or even triple-talk) that I think it is worth examining in detail. It is simply fascinating to see all the mental gymnastics that Scahill goes through in less than a minute.

Scahill begins by simply affirming his faith in the official story. Listen to him. He really sounds like somebody reciting scripture. He says: “I believe that the United States was attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda by men flying airplanes into buildings…” (DEEP STRUCTURE TRANSLATION: “I am not a heretic.” I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost…)

Note that Scahill does not, at any point, make the slightest attempt to explain why he believes any of this. He simply says: “I believe…”. If his answer had simply ended right there, with him saying “I believe Al Qaeda did it”, then anybody could interpret this as a perfunctory response, where he says what he knows that he has to say in this spot, but without any real conviction.

But his response does not end there. He then goes on to represent that he is familiar with the 9/11 Truth literature, specifically mentioning the Loose Change documentary and the name of David Ray Griffin. I guess what happened here is that he senses that if he just states belief in the official story and nothing more, he comes off as a brainwashed fool, just reciting dogma, so he feels he must say that he has at least considered the other viewpoint. So, at the 0:20 mark, you would think that his position is that he respects the 9/11 Truth researchers, yet he has finally decided (though he won’t say why, but presumably has researched it) that he believes the official story.

But his response does not end there either. Around 0:22 there is an incredible shift in his entire register, the kind of vocabulary he starts using. He says: “I think it is so destructive to what is intended to be an honest dialogue in this country about U.S. policy. I don’t buy it for one minute and I think it’s insulting to the people who died.”

Note the language he suddenly starts using: destructive, honest dialogue, insulting… I believe what happened at around 0:20 is that it dawns on him (either on the conscious or subconscious level, I don’t know) that he must make a point of forcefully denouncing the so-called “truthers”. Because this is what expected of him. So now he completely shifts register, using this kind of language: they are not engaging in “honest dialogue”, they are “insulting” the people who died. When one hears the word “destructive” it kind of makes one wonder what precisely the independent 9/11 researchers are destroying. (He obviously doesn’t mean they destroyed any buildings! That, he has already said, was Al Qaeda!)

But, then, after saying this sentence, I guess he realizes that he just insulted the person who asked him the question (and probably some significant part of the audience as well) and, my sense is that Scahill is the kind of person who wants to come off as a nice guy, to be liked, so he tries to backtrack a little and says: “if you are of that viewpoint, that is your right. If you’re a truther (and obviously the person who asked him the question is!) then… hey, that’s okay too! But in the previous sentence, he said that they were “insulting” the people who died on 9/11!? Oh, really? But that’s okay, you have the “right”… You guys are doing the equivalent of desecrating a cemetery, but… you have the “right” to do that…

So, in summary, what we have here, compressed into under a minute is the most bizarre mental gymnastics and contortions. He asserts his belief in the official story but, initially, wants to represent that he respects the people who don’t. Then, in the very next breath, he says that the people who dispute the official story are being destructive, dishonest, and insulting. (Not just being insulting, mind you, but insulting the dead, which is, I guess, doubleplusungood because the dead can’t insult you back!) But then it’s all okay… you have the “right” to do that… I’m OK, you’re OK….

One thing that occurs to me about all of this is that, surely this is somehow very typical of the modern age we live in. Just try to imagine Torquemada going through all these contortions: “Oh, you ask me about heresy… well, I myself believe in the Church Dogma…. BUT…. those heretics are good guys and I respect them… OH, BUT… they are committing blasphemy (and deserve to die)… OH, BUT… hey, they have the right to do that, I’m a tolerant guy, after all….” All of that in the same minute, and then, of course, proceeding to burn them at the stake anyway. I wasn’t there, but I just can’t imagine Torquemada being so incoherent, well… such a flake. I get the feeling that, in a way, the Spanish Inquisition was much more honest and forthright than modern-day intellectual gatekeepers.

For purposes of contrast, I wanted to compare a similar video clip of Torquemada, but for some reason, I could not find any. So this will have to do:

Well, you see, Scahill has a problem that somebody like Torquemada would not have. Like Torquemada, he must vigorously condemn the heretics: they are unbelievers, they are unworthy, they stink and they make me wanna puke…. But then he also has this competing modern-day ethos of rational thought and open-mindedness and reasonableness and just general I’m OK, you’re OK-ness. So he is whipsawed by these contrary forces and it’s just sort of excruciating. Torquemada would not have that problem. He doesn’t have to pretend to be rational and reasonable and all that. He also probably doesn’t particularly care whether he comes across as a nice guy. In fact, he probably revels in the fact that (unlike Scahill) he is one scary dude and people are (quite justifiably) terrified of him.

Now, cutting to the chase, if you will… does Scahill really buy the official version of what happened on 9/11? Hmm… Damned if I know. It’s the same general problem as I outlined above, isn’t it? In 15th century Spain, there were very strong reasons to suspect that many declarations of Christian faith were not being made sincerely, but how could one ever tell for sure?

If Scahill were to come out as a “Truther”, he would essentially become a non-person as far as the mainstream media goes. Once he was tarred as a heretic conspiracy theorist, he would be effectively excommunicated banned. No more television appearances certainly, and he would be subjected to a whole campaign of attacks, with people saying that he had lost his mind and become a “conspiracy theorist”. They wouldn’t burn Jeremy at the stake, I suppose, but they would effectively excommunicate him. His charmed existence would largely come to an end and life would definitely become quite a bit more difficult for Jeremy.

Well, I would venture to say that, at the very least, he is far less certain of the Al Qaeda story than he is representing. What somebody in that position understands is that he simply must express his firm belief in the official story.

Modern-day Religious Intolerance

While the Spanish Inquisition stands out in our collective consciousness as a horrific example of religious intolerance, it did happen a good while ago. It doesn’t have all that much to do with what is going on now. Let me now share an anecdote that is far more typical of modern Spanish society than Torquemada or the Inquisition.

My friend R is a Spaniard in his early forties, who, in his youth was very religious and was active in conservative Catholic circles, Opus Dei and such. He later drifted away from that world, mostly because he lost his faith in the religion — just doesn’t believe in it any more. Nonetheless, R’s political and social views remain on the conservative end of the spectrum.

R recounted to me an incident that occurred with his sister, a conversation in which R stated his opposition to same-sex marriage. His sister became infuriated at him and insulted him, her own brother, calling him the F word (fascist) and such. R told me the story and shook his head in amazement, thinking of how utterly brainwashed his own sister was. And he added wistfully: “You know, on occasion, I run into the people that I knew back in my religious phase. They always greet me warmly and ask how I’m doing. They don’t preach at me. No one has ever reproached me for not going to the church in years. As far as they’re concerned that’s my own personal choice…”

I suppose this anecdote made an impression on me because it reinforced a view that had been forming in my own mind for some time. I have become increasingly aware that, in the modern-day world, most of the intolerance and fanaticism emanates from secular ideologies, not from religion. The anecdote of R and his sister is not at all atypical. Consider, for example, this 2014 article from the American Conservative.

“… a woman named Chauncy Childs is planning to open a premium food store, a place where she can sell locally-raised and grown fresh meat and vegetables, including the non-GMO food she grows on her farm. But the people in the progressive neighborhood where she’s planning to open read her Facebook page, and found that she does not support same-sex marriage, and was kind of ugly about it.”

This incident did not occur in Spain, but rather, in the U.S.A., in Portland, Oregon. The local “progressives”, on discovering that Ms. Childs’s Facebook page expressed disapproval of same-sex marriage, decided to try to organize a boycott of her organic produce business. It’s understandable, I suppose. People must be warned that they could be buying their tomatoes from somebody who thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman! The horror… the horror…

What I wonder about all of this is what happens if Ms. Childs now completely reverses her position and announces her support of gay marriage on her Facebook page? Would this solve the problem? Would the Portland progressives now relent, or would they, like Torquemada, harbor (well-founded) doubts that this woman’s “conversion” is sincere? But then, even if, by some incredible chance, she is sincere, how would she go about demonstrating it to these latter day Inquisitors?

Thinking about ARRF, Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism

For a good while, I was looking for a term to describe these sorts of incidents involving secular, anti-religious fanaticism. It eventually dawned on me that there was no absolute need for any new terminology. These two above examples, R’s hysterical SJW sister or the secular fanatics in Portland, this can simply be called religious intolerance.

You see, finally it occurs to me that the secular, progressive set of ideas that this emerges from is best thought of as a religion. Well, I guess we could call it the anti-religion religion. (ARR?) This leads to the notion of Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism, or ARRF for short. I know it sounds contradictory, but maybe it isn’t really. Apparently, figuring out that zero is a number was a big intellectual advance. At least it seems necessary for logical completeness, just like the notion that the empty (or null) set is itself a set. It also occurs to me that, in everyday usage, we invariably refer to black as a color, even though all the science websites say that black is not a color, but the absence thereof. Just consider the following dialogue that recurs constantly in retail outlets the world over:

What color would you like that in, sir?

Black, please.

Surely, sir, you realize that black is not a color, but is the absence of color…

Uhh, yeah, thanks for telling me that and, uhh… go **** yourself, you pedantic ****.

Well, actually, I don’t think that happens much. In fact, I just made that up. But regardless, finally, it seems to me that if black, the absence of color, is itself a color, and zero is a number and the null set is a set, then atheism (especially when accompanied by all the various secular progressive dogmas) can perfectly well be thought of as a religion.

The important conceptual jump here is that, once you realize that secular progressivism is itself a religion (of sorts) then it becomes all the more obvious that adherents of that “religion” can be as fanatical and intolerant as old Torquemada ever was. They can mount their latter-day Inquisitions and witch hunts and excommunicate people and all the rest of it. And they will do this, all the while claiming that the people they are persecuting are victimizing them! Militant atheists, like Richard Dawkins, will go on and on about “religious intolerance”, as something that they themselves cannot possibly be guilty of. Another way of putting this is that they remain blithely unaware of the existence of Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism i.e. ARRF.

I assume that Dawkins and the other “New Atheists” would scoff at the very notion of ARRF. For them, religious fanaticism is something that other people are guilty of, never them. I suppose that they would see ARRF as an inherently contradictory, senseless term. However, this could well be the biggest single weakness in their world view. My own sense of things is not only that ARRF definitely exists, but in fact, most of the current-day religious intolerance and fanaticism actually comes from the secular camp! If you don’t believe that, then maybe you need to open your eyes. Some further examples are in order.

La Terre de la Liberté

This phenomenon we’re discussing here is not specific to any one country. It is strongly present throughout the Western world, though perhaps to varying degrees. Still, it really seems that France is the country where things are at their most intense. At least, to my knowledge, France is the only country that has issued fines to women for NOT showing enough skin on the beach! Consider this article about the banning of the so-called “burkini” in 30 different beach towns in France. There are various striking aspects of this whole story.

First of all, women exposing themselves as much as they do nowadays on the beach (or anywhere public) is really quite a recent phenomenon in Western society. Just consider what comes up in a Google Image search for Victorian women’s swimwear. It is pretty clear that the current-day Muslim women wearing “burkinis” would have fit in perfectly well in the Victorian beach scene. However, any woman wearing typical modern beachwear back then would surely have been arrested for indecent exposure!

There is the famous quip that when a dog bites a man, that is not news. But when the man bites the dog…. By the same token, the whole notion that women covering themselves too much (as opposed to too little) is an offense to public morals — this is already so bizarre that the phenomenon is begging for some serious analysis and explanation. Moreover, we are not talking about an isolated incident that occurs in one small place with a goofball mayor. No, we are talking about 30 different municipalities in France!

Since it seems to me that, in a free country, which France prides itself on being, you can wear a full body swimming outfit if you want, I was curious how they justified this burkini ban. I found a segment on the English language programming on France 24 entitled “Understanding the Burkini Ban” which actually seems to outline what is going on in a fair-minded manner. Around 0:40 of the video, the commentator, one Florence Villeminot, states that the various mayors have cited a wide range of reasons. She starts by mentioning some that are patently absurd, such as hygiene. Also, “security reasons” — the Muslim ladies could be hiding a John Rambo (Jean Rimbaud?) arsenal under the swimsuit maybe… But then Ms. Villeminot gets, I think, to the heart of the matter: when Muslim women wear this “burkini” swimsuit that exposes so little skin, this is considered a “symbol of religious extremism” and thus, constitutes an attack on France’s sacred principle of “laïcité”.

Any online French-English dictionary will tell you that the English word for “laïcité” is “secularism”, which is a rather intellectual word in English. I suppose most American readers would immediately think of the more long-winded formulation, “Separation of Church and State”, which is, of course, a founding principle of American government. Now, the intellectual origins of these things are broadly the same, since the American founding fathers, the framers of the Constitution, were influenced by French intellectuals of that time; in general, there has always been a cross-fertilization of ideas. However, it really seems that, at this point in time, the French concept of “laïcité” goes much further than its American counterpart, and has evolved into something quite a bit more radical and aggressive. I guess one way of characterizing this could be that it is the establishment of ARRF as a sort of official state religion.

In his sketch “La Gay Pride”, we see the controversial comedian Dieudonné viciously lampooning this French laïcité — in other words, making fun of ARRF.

In this sketch, five years before the “burkini” controversy, Dieudo is having a field day with the absurdities of modern France. The sketch is hardly even satirical, because it seems that the situation he describes is real and is beyond satire. A bunch of homosexuals can mount an orgy on the streets of Paris and this is a sign of France’s modernity and tolerance, but religious Moslems praying in the street must be violently dispersed by the police because, like the Muslim ladies dressing modestly at the beach, it is an attack on the reigning “religion” of laïcité.

Ah, the Smell of Boiling Frogs in the Morning

For some reason, all this talk of the goings-on in France reminds me of the boiling frog story. You know, they say that if you drop a frog into scalding hot water, it will immediately jump out, but if you put the frog in tepid water and very gradually raise the temperature, it will never notice anything amiss and gradually be boiled alive.

Actually, there seems to be some dispute over this and I’m not sure it’s really true. It might be something like the English idiom that if pigs had wings they could fly, which, as I’ve said earlier, I’m pretty sure is untrue. Well, never mind, people have been saying that for centuries without too much concern for whether it is true or not. I guess that’s the way it is with these sorts of metaphors. The point of the boiling frog story, of course, is that if change occurs gradually, people can remain surprisingly unaware of just how extreme the situation has become. And that point is certainly valid, and not just when it comes to all these various social derangements. Most Americans, for example, seem oblivious to just how unhinged their country’s foreign policy has become.

There is a certain kind of horror film genre, usually featuring some sort of psychopath killer. In such films, there is typically some key moment in which one realizes just how serious the situation really is. For example, in the Kubrick masterpiece, the Shining, you have Jack Nicholson endlessly typing “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” In the following classic movie clip, we see how the horror of the situation dawns on his wife (as well as the movie audience) when she realizes that her husband is a total whack job.

I guess we could call this the “All work and no play moment” or the AWANP Moment or AWANPM for short. Some Americans may reach this point when they are watching CNN or Fox News and some expert on military affairs says that they had to destroy the village in order to save it — or, if not exactly that, something of that nature. They can think, like Jack Nicholson’s wife in the Shining: “Oh my God, this person is a complete psychopath!”

Or it might be something like this:

Here we see a person who came very close to becoming President of the United States, cackling like the evil Witch of the West about the death of a man. Surely this does cause some people to have an AWANPM, as in: “Oh my God. This woman really is an evil maniac!” By the same token, for many French people, it must be an AWANP moment when they see local police in some beach town issuing fines to women because they are not showing enough skin! Still, what is striking is how most people do not have an AWANPM when, by all rights, they should. The aforementioned boiling frog metaphor does offer one ready-made explanation.

Just to be absolutely clear, the boiling frogs story does refer to the actual animals, not the people in France. Facile jokes aside, this is not about the French specifically. While France does seem to be on the cutting edge of certain kinds of insanity, the rest of the Western world is not far behind, and in some regards, other places may actually be out in front. The U.S.A., despite what the super-patriots believe, is not always number 1 in everything — but we usually are strong contenders at least. So if France has its burkini controversy, the U.S.A. has the great transgender bathroom battle. Everybody does their best. Even little Austria has gifted the world with the sensational superstar Conchita Wurst

So all this derangement is not specific to France or any other country. The politically correct bullshit permeates current-day Western society as a whole. It so happens that I am composing these lines in Spain. While it would obviously be untrue to say that the Catholic Church here has ceased to exist, it makes little sense to refer to current-day Spain as a “Catholic country”. Nor, in general, does it make sense to refer to any other Western countries as “Christian countries”. No, the “religion” that dominates public discourse — the mainstream media, television, movies, higher education… — is clearly secular progressivism. I am satisfied that, by any conceivable metric, the dominant religion in Spain is not Roman Catholicism, but what I call here ARRF. And that, broadly, is the situation in the Christian (or formerly Christian) West.

“Let them eat ARRF.”

Now, at this stage of the exposition, I feel I have to make a general point, which is this: just because I am writing about a phenomenon, even inventing a term for it (ARRF) does not mean that I presume to understand it fully. For example, in an earlier essay, I defined the term “High IQ Idiot”, or HIQI. I described the phenomenon and tried to provide some framework of analysis, but I certainly do not claim to fully understand why so many high IQ, highly educated people are so helpless against the propaganda matrix and all of its cartoonish, synthetic narratives. Similarly, I have often wondered how many people really believe — I mean strongly believe — in the various politically correct, ARRF propositions, like same-sex marriage. For example, I have heard the claim that support for gay marriage is now the majority viewpoint, but I don’t know whether to believe that. If one’s source of information on something like that is the mainstream media, that is problematic, given the MSM’s pro-ARRF bias.

I don’t think it is easy to know. You see, a lot of people will proclaim (even loudly) their belief in all sorts of dogmas when they feel it is in their interest to do so, that this is what is expected of them. That is true now just as it was in Medieval Spain or Soviet Russia. That is one way that elites can become pretty disconnected from reality. Surely a lot of rich, powerful people believe themselves to be very witty and funny because everybody always laughs at all of their jokes. They would believe it because they want to believe it and also because nobody ever tells them that they suck.

I’m writing this not long after the 2016 presidential election, and like so many others, I am still trying to absorb the news, make sense of Trump’s win. I have to admit that I had long assumed that a Hillary Clinton presidency was inevitable. That’s what the mainstream media was telling us and I believed them, silly me. So, yeah, they had me conned, but that is of little importance, of course. More importantly, they had themselves conned! Basically, Hillary and the people running her campaign must have believed that they would have an easy victory if they configured the contest as a sort of ARRF referendum. I guess this is because the whole ARRF narrative is so dominant in the mainstream media that it was kind of an echo chamber and they were there believing their own bullshit. Well, Marie Antoinette allegedly said: “Let them eat cake.” That showed how out of touch she was, but that’s already a lot more realistic than “Let them eat feminism and gay rights.”

Hillary’s entire campaign message was very much a sort of progressive, ARRF narrative — that she, Hillary Clinton was going to fulfill historical destiny by becoming the first woman president. Actually, I guess it was part of a larger, triumphant ARRF narrative. She was the logical progression from Obama, the first black president. Not that the order was necessarily that important, I suppose. Had Hillary prevailed in 2008, then they would have had Obama waiting in the wings this time round. I also reasoned that, after Hillary was done and we’d had a black and a woman, we were going to have an openly gay president after that. I felt it was, as the Muslims say: Maktub. (It is written.) Or as the Borg say: “Resistance is futile.” Whatever. It was divine destiny, the next inevitable chapter in the world according to ARRF. Okay, it wasn’t so inevitable after all, but that is how they were trying to present it, and they certainly had me fooled.

Actually, it almost worked! Trump’s margin of victory was really razor thin. I mean, when you lose the popular vote but then eke out a win in the electoral college, that is something very close. If Hillary had got an extra 1% in Florida and Pennsylvania, she would have made it. Trump won by a hair really, but it wasn’t supposed to be close at all. Hillary was supposed to win in a landslide.

When Hillary referred to the core of Trump’s support as coming from a “basket of deplorables”, the deeper meaning was that these people were heretics or infidels, blasphemers against whatever sacred ARRF dogma — a motley crew of racists, sexists, homophobes… the “alt-Right”… All these infidels were standing in the way of progress. (Well, her progress, anyway…)

“YES, THEY DESERVE TO DIE! AND I HOPE THEY ALL BURN IN HELL!!!”

“OH, SHUT UP, HILLARY!”

(Don’t mind her, she’ll get over it…)

Not only was Hillary’s candidacy an ARRF candidacy, Trump was very much the anti-ARRF candidate. Time and again, the mainstream media claimed that Trump was committing political suicide by saying whatever politically incorrect thing he said and, in retrospect, it only seemed to make him stronger. But this can be understood. If much of Trump’s appeal was that he was the anti-ARRF candidate, then he was hardly hurting himself by being politically incorrect! (It’s not a bug! It’s a feature!)

So Trump’s victory was, to a large extent anyway, a triumph of anti-ARRF heresy. That is my own way of expressing it, other people will doubtless express the same approximate idea using other terminology. Regardless of the exact language one uses, this paradigm can help explain why there is such a diverse group of people, not just in the U.S.A., but around the world, who take such delight in Trump’s win. Within 24 hours of Trump’s victory, a visibly elated Dieudonné put up a video congratulating Trump. Unlike the previous Dieudo video I linked, this one does not have English subtitles, but I would still invite people to watch the first half minute or so just for the tone and body language.

At 0:19, he says: “Quelle bouffée d’oxygène!” What a mouthful of oxygen! Of course, in English we would say “a breath of fresh air”. (Actually, Dieudo said: “Quelle bouffée d’oxygène, putain de merde!”. But I won’t translate the latter part.) A breath of fresh air, just an expression, but if you think about it a bit, if the victory of Trump, the anti-ARRF candidate is a breath of fresh air, that means that the ARRF candidate, or ARRF itself, is the opposite of that, i.e. there is something suffocating about ARRF. And isn’t there? Isn’t political correctness terribly mentally oppressive? “You can’t say this, you can’t say that…” So when Trump did say this and did say that and won anyway, for many people, there was something very liberating about that.

I think it’s safe to say that, for the most part, people are far happier about Clinton’s defeat than Trump’s victory. The practical consequences of a President Trump remain to be seen. For many people it is more about the symbolism of the event. In the terminology of this essay, they could proclaim:

Hillary represents ARRF and ARRF makes me wanna barf.

Speaking of the Unspeakable

It has been said (though I honestly don’t know who said it first) that if you could ask a fish to describe its environment, the last thing it would ever mention is water. That might explain why I ended up inventing a new term for something that so pervades Western culture. It is so pervasive that, for the most part, people are unaware of it and thus, there is not even a generally accepted word for it. In an earlier essay, I pointed out how propagandists use language to frame issues. Well, we can (and should) play at that too. The initial point of the ARRF (Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism) framing is to emphasize that this set of secular dogmas really is like a religion in very many ways — an especially fanatical, messianic religion at that! For the true believer, if you don’t believe in all the various PC dogmas — radical feminism, gay rights, multiculturalism and so forth — you are a vile and unworthy person. However, you won’t be called an “infidel” or a “heretic”, but rather, a sexist, a racist, or a homophobe. Interestingly, you could also be called a nazi or a fascist. If you step back and look at it, these last two are strangely anachronistic insults well into the 21st century. However, I would say that, once you better understand ARRF, it is not so strange after all. You see, it reflects another key facet of ARRF: aside from the PC side, with its bizarre questioning of traditional gender identities and all that, there is this indefinite extension of the very one-sided Manichean version of World War 2 and its origins, a.k.a. the “Good War” myth. It is probably in this aspect that ARRF is most like classic religious fanaticism. Of course, PC is a preachy evangelical religion for sure, but nothing in the modern Western world more resembles a Medieval Inquisition or heresy trial than the various Holocaust denial trials.

The other reason to define a new term myself is that I can play at Humpty Dumpty: “A word means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” What I am talking about when I say ARRF is really the dominant ideology or belief system of the AngloZionist West. I owe the term “AngloZionist” or “AngloZionist Empire” to the estimable Saker, who has, not surprisingly, been heavily criticized for this term. Typically, the critics object to the “Zionist” part more than the “Anglo” part. I think it’s unavoidable, since the out-sized role of Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks in creating this whole ball of wax really cannot be denied — to the extent that any analysis that avoids mentioning this will not be worth very much. On consideration, if we are to discuss ARRF, then we cannot respect all the taboos that ARRF itself imposes when doing so!

This development of the ARRF concept is really a continuation of my previous writing. In the first essay I wrote, I introduced terms such as BDQ (Bullshit Detection Quotient) and the concept of the HIQI, the High IQ Idiot. Stepping back and looking at all of this, these concepts all revolve around a key question that has been tormenting me ever since I started to get a bit educated about the world. This is a question that many like-minded readers will doubtless have pondered as well. It is the following:

Why is everybody (or just about everybody) so damned brainfucked?

To be clear, the above question does not refer to uneducated people, of the sort who never read anything serious and would be hard-pressed to find their own country on a world map. I’m not talking about people who, through no fault of their own, are way on the left side of the old Bell curve. No, I’m referring to people who have some claim to belonging to the intellectual elite of society, who typically have a high level of formal education. In short, it’s about the HIQIs. Or, in other words, why is it that, almost invariably, if you try to talk to any of these people, these HIQIs, about world events or such, you quickly feel like you would be better off banging your head against a wall?

Well, I’m going to take an initial stab at answering this question. The short answer to the above question, in the terminology of this essay, is as follows:

The reason they are all so brainfucked is because their heads are crammed full of ARRF.

Now, I recognize that, at first blush, the above might seem a tad facetious. To say that people are full of shit because their heads are full of shit, though trivially true, does not really constitute a framework of analysis. I realize that. (A bit on the jejune side, eh?) Well, I guess it is good enough if all you want to do is rant and vent your frustrations, but I am trying to get beyond that and narrow in on some things that are conceptually useful. In the essay where I introduced the HIQI terminology, I admitted that I myself was a HIQI most of my life. In the terminology of this essay, my head was chock full of ARRF.

This, at least tentatively, provides a basic explanation of the HIQI phenomenon. It doesn’t matter how high your IQ happens to be if your head is full of ARRF. What this amounts to is having all these synthetic narratives floating around that render it impossible to think clearly about anything. What ARRF does is that it frames just about every major issue in a very deceptive, fallacious way. This is a very ambitious topic to take on and it can only be done here in a very general way. A thorough treatment would require a book-length exposition or more likely various books. Having expressed that caveat, here goes…

Dissecting ARRF

I sent earlier drafts of this essay to various people whose opinion I respect. I got various different reactions, useful feedback, but nobody ever questioned the basic concept of ARRF. Everybody seemed to know exactly what I was talking about! In fact, at least a couple of them, in later correspondence with me, started using the term themselves! I conclude from this, that unless we are all suffering from the same delusion, ARRF definitely exists — this kind of secular religion that pervades the Western countries. However, this religion has no official name and no official catechism.

Suppose you met a nice Jewish girl and things get serious but the young lady insists that, if you are to get married, you must convert to Judaism. Now, even if you only have the most vague idea of what this would entail, there are surely plenty of resources out there, books and websites and the rest, that explain it — the various rules and rituals, religious dogmas that you are supposed to believe in (or pretend to believe in) and all that jazz. Of course, that is not just the case for Judaism. The same comment applies to any well established religion — Roman Catholicism, Sunni Islam, Tibetan Buddhism… you name it. Granted, as always, there is nuance, complexity: within any one of those religious traditions, there are surely different currents and subcurrents and doubtless there is lively theological debate. However, the main strands of belief are pretty well established such that a curious person could figure out what they are. Moreover, one could say much the same thing about a secular “religion” such as Marxism-Leninism.

Now, I would submit that ARRF, like these other religions, also has its main dogmas and such, except that they are not officially outlined anywhere. So, however presumptuous it may be on my part, I shall take it on myself to sketch it out. As I perceive it now, the Western secular religion of ARRF contains four principal doctrinal strands. Here is a convenient shorthand for them: DM, PC, CT, and GW.

  1. DM. The Democracy Myth. This is surely the central ARRF sacred narrative, this notion that government in the U.S.A. and other Western countries emerges from the will of the ordinary people — you know, via the fact that, every four years or so, you get to go into a polling booth and vote for one grinning idiot or another one. There is really no more reason to believe in this than in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
  2. PC. Alternatively: the Social Justice Narrative -— feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and all that jazz…
  3. CT. The weaponized Conspiracy Theory construct. I have written extensively about this over the last year. One could alternatively call it the New York Times Cult. A traditional religious person believes something because it is in the Bible. The HIQI, a.k.a. the true believer in ARRF, believes something because it is in the New York Times. Or possibly the Guardian or the BBC — whatever mainstream media venue. In practice, the term “conspiracy theory”, like “democracy”, is close to meaningless. Basically, it’s just a new way of saying “heresy”.
  4. GW. The Good War synthetic narrative. Alternatively, we could call this the RRN (Roger Rabbit Narrative) version of WW2. Essentially, the war is presented as a kind of supreme moral battle between the forces of good and the forces of pure evil. The biggest single subcomponent of this is the Auschwitz death cult, a.k.a. “Holocaustianity”.

I am painfully aware that each of the above is, on its own, a HUGE topic. Entire books could be written on each of the above, yet I can really only devote a bit of explanation to each one, which is what I shall do here.

DM

I guess the most basic aspect of this to understand is that, while ARRF is obviously a godless religion, the closest thing that it has to a God is, in fact, this “Democracy” construct. In the formerly Christian (now ARRF) Western countries, you can question the existence of God all you want, but if you suggest that “Democracy” does not really exist, you will make people quite uncomfortable. If you don’t believe it, just try it in the appropriate social context. Go to any watering hole where the local HIQIs congregate, and tell them that “Democracy” is bullshit, a myth. See how upset they get at you. (Tell them that God and Jesus Christ are bullshit, and they’ll probably pat you on the back and buy you a drink…)

Note also that the missionary work devoted to proselytizing ARRF is typically called something like “promoting Democracy” or some other phrase with the magic word Democracy in it. Though not necessarily… they might call this “spreading Western values”, but if you were then to ask them: “What Western values?” then what will they answer?

Democracy!!!

(If you guessed that one right, award yourself a biscuit…)

The overall ARRF missionary effort is utterly massive, surely dwarfing the missionary efforts of any traditional organized religion in scale and the resources available to it. Just offhand, there is NED, the National Endowment for Democracy, but there is a whole network of foundations and NGO’s, where, if you examine what they are about, it could be best described as ARRF missionary work. The overall George Soros financed ARRF missionary effort is called OSF, the Open Society Foundation. By the way, if you were to ask people to summarize what the heck “Open Society” means, then what will they answer?

Democracy!!!

(I know you guessed that one right too. Have another biscuit…)

Consider the following video snippet, in which Victoria Nuland, one of the leading witches from Hillary Clinton’s coven, explains U.S. policy in Ukraine leading up to the 2014 putsch.

She intones:

“Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over 5 billion (!) dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will insure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.”

It should not be a very difficult exercise to translate the above. All of the money spent “promoting democracy” means, of course, a massive proselytization effort to fill people’s heads with ARRF. The term “precondition” is interesting to consider. Filling people’s heads with ARRF, particularly the young people , is understood to be a precondition for orchestrating a successful CIA Color Revolution. The stuff about “good governance” is just gratuitous Orwellian language, as far as I can tell. I suppose it’s kind of a little cynical wink from this Satanic bitch. (That, or stealing everything that is not nailed down constitutes “good governance”.)

My initial rough translation of Ms. Nuland’s remarks are as follows: “We spent 5 billion dollars filling people’s heads with ARRF, so that they would be so brainfucked that they would be eager to become an impoverished vassal State of the AngloZionist Empire.” The latter is what “achieving its European aspirations” means, of course.

So, in Ukraine in the past few years, we see the results of the ARRF missionary efforts. Well, the Russians see the results too and their response is not really so hard to understand. They are a proud people who wish to maintain their independence. It is a dual response basically: on the one hand, they are reinforcing their traditional religious culture of Orthodox Christianity. They surely reason that people who practice their traditional religious culture are far less susceptible to having their heads filled with ARRF. Also, they take the rational, common-sense step of kicking the George Soros outfit and the rest of the ARRF missionary NGO’s out of their country. And, naturally, they ban some of the more obnoxious (at least from their point of view) ARRF manifestations, such as Gay Pride parades.

PC

Again, this is a very big topic. I believe that, to embark on a detailed analysis (which I will not do right here) requires one to break it down into two sub-topics. On the one hand, there is the role of the whole PC narrative in the core ARRF countries, i.e. North America and Western Europe. Then, on the other hand, you have the instrumentalization of the PC ideology in foreign policy, i.e. the proselytization of ARRF in the formerly communist countries, or in the Islamic world, for example.

I suppose that most people will have noticed how the Western propaganda matrix utilizes the overall PC narrative to demonize foreign governments and leaders. For example, that Vladimir Putin does not want a bunch of flaming pansies prancing around Red Square in a “Gay Pride” parade is used to show what an evil dude Vlad is. One interesting aspect of this is that it is pretty clear that the Russian people, by and large, don’t want this, so the government banning such things reflects the popular will, i.e. by basic definition, is “democratic”. Or, conversely, if Putin bowed to pressure from Western backed PC lobbies and allowed gay pride parades, when the vast majority of the Russian people don’t want that, this would, by any common-sense definition be “anti-democratic”, no?

Hmm…

Well, one way of looking at this is that ARRF is a religion and it is typical of religions that different doctrinal strands can contradict one another. Things written in one part of the Bible can certainly contradict something in some other part. And, in general, I would never claim that hypocrisy is exclusive to ARRF. However, at times ARRF really does seem to take hypocrisy to an entirely new level. The central sacred narrative in ARRF is democracy, after all. So how does ARRF deal with the fact that the leader they are demonizing (the new Hitler, bringing in the GW sub-narrative) wins election after election?

Well, they simply ignore it, of course. They repeatedly refer to somebody like Hugo Chavez or Putin as a dictator, even though these leaders came to power in fair elections and are far more popular in their own countries than any Western leader is. The thing to understand, of course, is that in ARRF-speak, the word “democratic” does not realiy mean anything. Or really, it means, pro-Western, i.e. pro-AngloZionist, or pro-ARRF. It does not, however, mean governance that reflects the popular will — unless that popular will coincides with what the Western power elite wants.

CT

I’ve already written extensively about the CT construct. Of course, it is a very deceptive use of language because being a “conspiracy theorist” really has nothing to do with constructing any theory oneself. It just means that you disbelieve the official Western propaganda matrix version of events. Thus, the little boy in the Emperor’s New Clothes story, when he saw a naked man and said that he was not wearing any clothes, was, in modern-day language, a “conspiracy theorist”.

In terms of the framing being used here, the notion of ARRF as a religion, the “conspiracy theory” construct is simply a relabeling of what traditional religions call “heresy”. Thus, when you read any ARRF rant about “conspiracy theorists”, if you simply mentally substitute the older term “heretic”, it will be more readily comprehensible. This is broadly similar to the idea that if, when you read things like “promoting democracy” or “instilling Western values”, you substitute in “filling people’s heads with ARRF”, then the real meaning of the text will again be more readily understandable.

In the time since I first started writing about this topic, they have put out a new framing: fake news. That whole thing leaves me speechless; it is astoundingly brazen. The basic idea is that the Russian government (or any other non-MSM approved) version of events in Syria, say, is propaganda, i.e. fake news. The U.S. government and mainstream media version of events is not propaganda; that’s the real news.

They are basically saying: “When they fart, it stinks, but ours smells like apple pie.” I know that’s vulgar, but I am satisfied that it is a fair and accurate characterization: Russian government propaganda is propaganda, but U.S. government propaganda is simply the truth. The whole thing is such an outrageously shameless and self-serving sort of idea, such an insult to anybody’s intelligence, that one would think there will be a backlash because now they’ve really gone too far. (Or have they? How utterly brainfucked are people? This is a moment of truth, no?)

It is truly breathtaking, since it’s so blatant that there is not even any sort of deception to deconstruct. All the pretenses are tossed aside and it’s: Our version of events is simply the truth. Why? Because we say so.

You see, what is striking about all this is that ARRF presents itself as a secular ideology that exalts science and reason and eschews belief in the supernatural. This is the position of the bestselling (heavily promoted) ARRF screed, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. The problem is that, on examination, this is complete nonsense. In practice, secularists have simply displaced their unquestioning faith. Instead of saying that they believe some story because it’s in the Bible, they believe it because it’s in the New York Times. Moreover, it is perfectly clear when you look at it, that ARRF, like the traditional religions, does effectively require belief in miracles. Ironically, this point was made by Christian theologian David Ray Griffin in an open letter addressed to a set of left gatekeeper public intellectuals. In any case, it seems abundantly clear that Dawkins’s argument is fundamentally wrong. All of the case he makes for religion being harmful applies to ARRF in spades: ARRF is fanatical and intolerant and also requires unquestioning belief in things that have no particular rational or scientific basis.

Certainly, ARRF requires declarations of faith in things for which there is no proof. That is completely apparent in the above-linked video snippet of Jeremy Scahill’s answer to a question on 9/11 Truth. In deep structure, the situation there is not at all different from somebody making some declaration of faith in the Middle Ages. “No, not me, I’m no dirty heretic, I believe those wicked Ay-rabs flew those planes into those buildings.” Where it does differ a bit is that Scahill feels the need (momentarily anyway) to say that he has at least considered the other point of view. But then he quickly backtracks and starts vociferously condemning the heretics.

The veneer of rationality can fall off pretty quickly. What is striking about the “fake news” construct is that there’s not even the veneer. They just say: “We’re the ones in possession of the truth.” All the science advocacy has clear limits. If Professor Richard Dawkins and the rest of the ARRF priesthood really believe in the primacy of science over faith-based superstitions, why don’t they advocate a science-based investigation of 9/11? Well, I think the answer is obvious, so I leave it as an exercise to the reader.

GW

When I refer to four broad strands of ARRF doctrine, another way of saying this is that there are, broadly speaking, four different kinds of anti-ARRF heresy. Despite the fact that you can get into real trouble for the first three kinds of heresy, by far the most dangerous is heresy related to GW. Of course, the GW related taboos are so strong that even seven decades after the end of the war, calling somebody a fascist or a nazi is just about the greatest insult imaginable. Thus, if you commit anti-PC heresy by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, you are a “fascist”, say. Of course, it is true that the Germans of the time believed that marriage was between a man and a woman, but that was also the belief in every other country that fought in WW2. (Whatever they were all fighting about, it sure wasn’t that! But never mind…)

Well, you see, never mind that it makes no sense. The point is that if you want to demonize somebody you call him a Nazi. They are always setting up some foreign leader as the “new Hitler”. Of course, it never makes sense. The situation they are super-imposing the Hitler narrative on typically has no real resemblance to what was going on in Germany in the 1930’s. But, as I have said earlier, the bullshit tends to be quite repetitive and this is a key repeated element.

This, again, is a very big topic, but in this context, a discussion of the main doctrinal strands of ARRF, the really important point is that the GW narrative, the History Channel AngloZionist version of the Second World War, is not really a scholarly, historical narrative; it is something much more like a religious dogma. I think the best way to illustrate this might be to contrast GW with Christian dogma.

In Christianity, Jesus Christ is understood to be the embodiment of God — the epitome of Good. ARRF, on the other hand, is a godless religion. This abstract construct called “Democracy” plays, to a large extent, the role of a God, but it is an impersonal God. However, there is a devil, who is a person! Of course, the devil’s name is not “Satan” nor is it “Lucifer”; it is “Adolf Hitler”. Just as, in Christianity, Jesus is not a man like other men, but the embodiment of Good, in ARRF, Hitler is the very epitome of pure Evil.

The main Christian narrative culminates in Calvary and the Cross, while the GW narrative, specifically the Holocaustianity subcult, has Auschwitz and the Gas Chamber. Of course, in current-day Western countries, the Gas Chamber is far more revered than the Cross. You can deny the Cross and mock Jesus all you want but they will destroy your career and even have you imprisoned in various countries for denying the gas chambers. This, by the way, surely constitutes the greatest single piece of evidence that ARRF has supplanted Christianity as the official religion of the West.

In Christianity, Jesus is supposed to come back one day, but we’ve been waiting for nearly 2000 years. Hitler, on the other hand, after only 70 years, came back numerous times.

A fascinating subnarrative is the treatment of the Munich Conference of 1938. You can be certain that if, tomorrow, Trump were to go off to Russia and talk to Putin, that the entire media would be going crazy screaming about Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938. The strange thing about the whole Neville Chamberlain in Munich narrative is that the people trotting this out always take as a given that the big mistake that Chamberlain made was going and talking to Hitler. Now, he may well have made a bad deal with Hitler that he should not have made. However, it is puzzling to me the notion that his mistake was going and talking to Hitler. They would say this even assuming that Trump went and talked to Putin and didn’t make any deal or give him anything, just talked to him. Neville Chamberlain in Munich, nya nya nya! Where’s yer umbrella, Donald?

I wonder how many people ponder just how dangerous this entire implicit framing of situations is. You see, once you say that somebody is Hitler, there is no moderate course of action. You can’t get together with Hitler over a beer (or mint tea, maybe) and talk things through. No! This is Hitler, dammit, he’s pure evil! Also, if your enemy is Hitler, no matter what barbaric, ultraviolent measures you take, they are always justified — bombing cities full of innocent civilians, implementing an economic blockade that causes people to starve or die from lack of needed medicines. No matter what evil you do, it is always the lesser evil, because the greater evil is… HITLER!!! No matter the price, the new Hitler must be stopped!

I think the succint way of characterizing all of this is that the GW narrative is the main theological justification in ARRF of the “Zionist Golden Rule”, which, in case you did not know, is:

Do unto others before the others get a chance to do it unto you.

Well, actually, one cannot credit the Zionists with that. The basic idea surely predates Zionism and even predates Christianity. However, the Zionists do live by it and the Hitler/Holocaust narrative really is the cornerstone of it in ARRF theology. For example, it underlies the whole doctrine of “pre-emptive war” and RTP (Responsibility To Protect) that was used to destroy Libya in 2011.

American Pravda and ARRF

On the Unz Review, there are currently 25 articles under the rubric of “American Pravda”. I believe that, overall, they constitute an important body of writing. Most (20) were written by Ron Unz himself. I am quite proud that two were written by me. Of course the common theme tying all these articles together is just how untrustworthy the American mainstream media is, perhaps no better (or possibly even worse) than Soviet era propaganda; Pravda (“Truth” in Russian) was the main Soviet newspaper. Ron’s approach has been to meticulously document all sorts of lies the media tells and that is worthwhile, of course. My articles also do that a fair bit, though nowhere near as meticulously as Ron does, since I’m not really an academician or a researcher.

In any case, the main focus of my writing is not really about demonstrating that the media is lying about whatever specific topic. Frankly, to me that is no longer that interesting a question. Of course they are lying about everything! I’m far more fascinated by the big picture question of why it is that people believe the lies. Well, not just people generally. I mean ME! Why did I believe all the bullshit for so long? And also: why do I no longer believe it? Self-observation is very problematic so it’s not like it’s easy to answer such questions. I have never asked my lapsed Catholic friend R why he stopped believing but I suspect he would not really be able to tell me.

So I don’t know what precisely would cause somebody to stop believing in ARRF or anything else. However, one thing I am pretty certain of at this point is that, once anybody stops believing in the main ARRF doctrines, — i.e. DM, PC, CT, and GW — then that person becomes largely immune to the mainstream media propaganda. The reason would be that all these things are sort of like building blocks in the various synthetic narratives they present, so once these things no longer have a hold on you, the propaganda narratives become ineffective. For example, if somebody is telling you that so-and-so is another Hitler, well, obviously it has no effect on you if you don’t really believe the GW sacred narrative anyway. Or if somebody tells you that the U.S. is intervening to establish “democracy” somewhere, you don’t believe it because you don’t believe in DM anymore. And so on.

On being partially pregnant

There is a prolific commenter on the Unz review who comes to mind. He is a racialist, Alt-right sort of guy, who despises all things PC. Well, there are many who fit that description, but the one I just happen to have in mind, in the run-up to the election wrote a comment that fascinated me. He said he was nervous about Trump because Trump was a “conspiracy theorist”, so it was like: “Is it a good idea to elect a heretic conspiracy theorist to the White House?” This commenter did not mind that Trump was allegedly a racist, a sexist, or whatever other ungood things. For him that was all good. But a conspiracy theorist? God save us!

Of course, it’s not about that one commenter. There are all these people who somehow do not see any connection between the enforcement of ideological conformism from the PC crowd and all the arrogant dismissal of so-called “conspiracy theories”. On the one hand, they firmly believe (correctly) that the mainstream media and the government are imposing a false narrative about one set of things — multiculturalism, feminism and such — but the dominant narratives about another set of things cannot be questioned. Thus, for example, these same people believe that the West is under attack from something called “radical Islam” and if you question that synthetic narrative (and the synthetic events that comprise it), you’re a “conspiracy theorist” and self-evidently crazy!

If there is one idea that I would really like to get across in this essay, it is the sheer futility of this sort of blinkered approach. Look, as a general principle, if you are going to oppose something, you have to oppose it integrally — as a holistic entity. Well, that maybe sounds more profound than it is. It’s actually a really dead simple idea. Like, if you get into the ring to box with somebody, you can’t just pretend that your opponent can only hit you with his left hand. (“The right hand, you say? What’s that? Sounds like a silly conspiracy theory to me….” BOOM!!!)

So, if you do broadly accept the framing of this article (which could be a big assumption, I know…) you can’t just oppose PC but then toe the line on CT or GW. You can’t do that any more than you can selectively decide to fight with somebody’s left hand and pretend that their right hand doesn’t exist. Because all of these things are bound up with one another. They are part of a whole.

If you don’t believe that, well, okay, but then I would suggest that you look more closely at the lay of the land. If you look at the network of NGO’s and foundations that we could say broadly are proselytizing ARRF, persecuting the heretics, it’s the same people enforcing the approved line on these various things. If you want to get on the shit list of the B’nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, say, you have various routes: you can be a white nationalist (anti-PC heresy) or you can be a 9/11 Truther (CT) or you can be a WW2 revisionist (GW). The same Masters of Discourse (to use the great Israel Shamir’s term) are enforcing intellectual conformity on all these various things. You may not think that these things are connected, but believe me, they are. All of these different constructs are ideological weapons for these people. Really, it’s the same little man behind the curtain.

Concluding Remarks

The origin of this article is that I wanted to write a devastating critique of a certain intellectual movement, broadly called the New Atheists. Probably the leading figure of that is Richard Dawkins, at least now that Christopher Hitchens is no longer. Though I am not a religious person myself, those people really annoy me and it was an itch I wanted to scratch. But I didn’t anticipate writing such a lengthy article. As I wrote it, it developed more into an analysis of the dominant Western ideology, looking at it as a religion. The way this developed is as follows: you see, the single thing I find most offensive about Dawkins and the rest of these people is the way they constantly preen themselves that they are taking some sort of brave, principled stand against these horrible religious people. And that really is quite fraudulent. Whatever courage is exactly, it is largely situational. Fighting Nazis in 1942 or 1943 on a battlefield or joining the French Resistance required real courage. However, battling (non-existent) Nazis in the 21st century requires no courage whatsoever. It amounts to vacuous posturing. The religion bashing that Dawkins and the other so-called “New Atheists” engage in requires no courage either. To say the same things in Torquemada’s day, that would have taken some real balls! These people, properly understood, are proselytizing ARRF, and ARRF, not Christianity, is currently the dominant religion in the West and there is nothing daring or courageous about upholding your society’s dominant religion! This was a central point I wanted to make, but to get there, I had to develop the ARRF concept more and that kind of took on a life of its own.

Also, I started writing the article before the U.S. elections in which Trump surprisingly won. When this took place, with the article still unfinished, I felt that I had to incorporate that into the exposition and the focus of the article shifted somewhat. I was interested in looking at the election and Trump’s surprising victory through the lens of this ARRF framing.

Finally, I ended up saying a lot but much is left unsaid. I outlined the core ARRF “catechism” in very broad strokes. I try to be mindful of what criticisms my analysis is open to. For example, I am quite aware that there is nothing like a complete unity of belief in ARRF. But actually, that is also true of traditional religions; a single religious tradition can encompass different tendencies and there can be various subcults within a religion that are more or less optional. For example, in Roman Catholicism there are all these saints, more of them than you could shake a stick at actually. So venerating any of the more minor saints is obviously optional; there are simply too many of them. You could choose to revere a certain saint and even do a pilgrimage to a holy site related to that figure, but it’s not mandatory. So there are core doctrines that everybody really must believe, like Jesus on the Cross at Calvary, but then there is a bunch of stuff that is more or less optional.

ARRF seems to work quite a bit like that. For example, take the WC cult. (This refers to the British wartime leader Winston Churchill, not the washroom.) WC is a subcult of GW, but I don’t think it’s really core ARRF. A public figure could probably get away with saying negative things about Churchill. And one potential problem with the WC subcult is that the man was such a horrid imperialist/racist that it runs up against the PC component — at least if Churchill is portrayed halfway honestly, which is a big “if”, of course. So this is an example of how there can often be tension between the different ARRF doctrines.

On the other hand, the negative personality cult of Hitler, AH for short, that really is core ARRF and saying anything positive about the man is hard-core blasphemy. So, for example, suppose you felt the sudden urge to say something like: “Hey, you know, Adolf looks like a nice feller to me. I love his cute little mustache.” I would advise you to bite your tongue. If there is the overpowering urge to blaspheme, I suggest you dash into the WC (here, WC means the washroom, not the British wartime leader) and say it there where nobody can hear you.

Or consider the American Exceptionalism cult, AE for short. This is mostly a subcult of DM, I think, but GW ties in very strongly. What AE most venerates is the U.S. military. America is the “policeman of the world”, defending “Democracy” — you know… all that crap… Obviously, AE is optional since it is mostly for Americans, though I suppose some extremely servile Western European politicians are also members of the cult. The AE subcult is agnostic, I think. Members are unsure whether God exists. However, if he does exist, he damned sure is an American!

Ich bin ein Häretiker

In this entire series of essays, I have said some very controversial things and I expect, even welcome criticism. That said, I would warn people that they really should only write a critique if they are absolutely sure that they understood the overall point of the article.

The point here is not really my own precise views regarding all the various ARRF dogmas. Now, as regards an archetypal PC issue like same-sex marriage, a reader could infer (correctly) that I am not in favor of it. But the thing is, even if my opinion on that was different, I would react to those progressive fanatics in Portland the same way. I’m not going to boycott somebody’s business or refuse to greet them in the street simply because they have a different view about that issue than I do. The problem is that this really is a religion for these people and they literally think it’s a crime for somebody to think differently, just to express a different view! Heresy! Even if they are not burning people at the stake (not yet, give them time…) they surely create an atmosphere that must be quite similar to that of a Medieval Inquisition. And, as I said, this is religious fanaticism. There is no need for a new word for it. I’m pretty sure the psychology is the same, that the same brain chemistry is involved. And then, the problem is that, whenever the part of the brain that does religious fanaticism gets flipped on, the part that handles nuance and complexity get turned off. There is no moral ambiguity; everything is black or white.

Now, to be absolutely clear about something here, I am not saying that the PC social justice narrative is completely wrong. Far from it. I’m certainly against persecuting people for being homosexuals. I’m quite happy that the Jim Crow laws in the American South were done away with and that Apartheid in South Africa was dismantled. And, yes, I believe these things, by and large, constitute progress.

The point is that rejecting PC as a religion, i.e. what I call here ARRF, does not constitute a wholesale rejection of every single liberal/progressive idea. I am against PC as a religion because it amounts to taking very complex situations and bowdlerizing them into some simplistic good vs. evil narrative, and then anybody who expresses any disagreement is a heretic, guilty of thought crimes.

This kind of binary, all-or-none reasoning is at its absolute worst when it comes to the GW component of ARRF, the “Good War” narrative. What they will argue basically is that if you reject their dogma of Hitler as the embodiment of pure Evil, this must mean that you believe in some alternative theology in which Hitler is pure Good. Well, no, I think a serious student of history should reject any sacred narrative being presented as history. Hitler was not God or the Devil, but a man, and as such, should be studied like any other historical figure, be it Stalin or Mao or Napoleon Bonaparte.

If people want to set up a religion and worship Winston Churchill as a God and say Hitler was the Devil, I guess that’s their own business. But once something gets turned into a religious dogma, doesn’t freedom of religion apply? Don’t we have the right to reject Holocaustianity the same as we have the right to reject Christianity? Or to tell the Jehovah’s witnesses at the door to get lost?

In closing, I should point out to people that if your critique boils down to hysterically shrieking that I am a heretic, then it’s all grist to the mill. It only goes to reinforce the central point of this essay! Besides, if you want to call me a heretic, i.e. a conspiracy theorist or a holocaust denier or any of these things, I think I really should take it as a compliment. These terms really have to lose their power over people. It really seems to me that all the anti-ARRF heretics should come together, not to agree with one another about everything, mind you, but at least to identify a common enemy. To paraphrase JFK, I think we should all more or less stand up and say: “Ich bin ein Häretiker.”

Fan mail (as well as hate mail) can be directed to revusky at gmail.

 
Hide 409 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Yeesh says:

    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn’t saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was.

    Read More
    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two. I think i was 16 in 76 when I first argued that atheism was its own religious position and not the neutral position being argued. Not long after that I was able to point out that if leftists were correct that morality [along with the rest of experience] was subjective, then their own moral values like tolerance were no less subjective than christianitys. By the early eighties Books like the world according to garp were making the case as explicitly, while leftism had actually developed several quasi religions that they claimed incorporated their beliefs. Cults, new age fads, and western reinterpretations of Hinduism Islam and Buddhism.By this time I had read all sorts of philosophers who seemed to make the same claim.And of course along comes mencius moldbug with a detailed provenance of leftism from Cromwell, again Yarvin is not original either but he was at least entertaining and erudite
    , @Anonymous

    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really
    1) Wasn’t saying anything new, surprising or original
    2) was convinced he was.
     
    Always check the word-count at the top of the article. Had I done so, I would not have waded through the first 4000 dolefully uninteresting words. Come on, revusky, be at least trivially entertaining. This was interminable drudgery to read.

    I don't want to watch videos. I want to read clear, expository English composition. Don't bullshit me -- spit it the hell out in 2000, or less, concise and well-chosen words that illustrate and summarize you central point, or at absolute most, 3 central points.

    This article is a horrifying mess, insulting to the intelligence of any who are foolish enough to read past the first few thousand dreary words.
    , @annamaria
    "But once something gets turned into a religious dogma, doesn’t freedom of religion apply?"

    This is a clearly-articulated idea targeting both opportunists and faux revolutionaries that want to look radical while staying comfortably safe.
    This clip (linked above) should help to better understanding of the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WD3YAyh274
    Moreover, the indifference of the EU/US "progressives" to the massive crimes committed by NATO/US/Israel/SA in the Middle East (in the name of democracy, of course) is the symptom of the "progressives" groupthink that the author is so good at describing. The article is indeed a whiff of fresh air.

    , @Mr. Anon
    "Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn’t saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was."

    You might have added an additional point to item 1): "or right"

    I realized all that the moment I saw the byline "Jonathan Revusky".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/faith-reason-fanaticism-and-the-deeper-meaning-of-the-donald/#comment-1705030
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Beautiful article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    A religion is simply a community moral code. The code may be rationalized by reference to a deity, the spirits of ancestors, Brahma or whatever, but it need not be. Thus Communism, Nazism or atheistic progressivism are all regions, and among the most intolerant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Alephzero says:

    Interesting and a thoughtful piece. I wonder if you will consider exploring the possibility that ARRF is not a godless religion and see how far it will take you. The god to look for is “money” or something along that line.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. candide says:

    Wow! So many words!
    Let me check if I got it right:
    So, OFF is truly a TV channel after all?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Yeah, American liberals often are sanctimonious and arrogant sons of bitches, no question about that. And hypocritical to the bone. I like Daniel Dennett, though, he sounds okay.

    I think every religion or ideology has this problem, they all produce dogmatic zealous strains. And eventually zealots tend to take over.

    This is related, perhaps: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority, by Nassim Taleb.

    https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.prrsco4aj

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. edNels says:

    The best article I’ve read here! You can really make w0rds flow too. I only read 1/3 so far, will continue the rest.

    The phrase that comes to mind is: It couldn’t happen here.

    A book The Beast: about the early developments in ’30′s Germany makes believable that just folks, have been easily steered into… Inquisition kinds of things.

    This artical is extremely timely, checking the general indicators.

    Oh, and Scahill, well of course he tows the line, but maybe he just had desire to ”differentiate his personal style from the guy who drove his Mercedes 100 mph into tree, these journos need to keep current, with some by line, different look, they compete a lot.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD1RggrWRNE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. MarkinPNW says:

    “On being partially pregnant” describes a couple of dear friends of mine, both Never-Trumpers. My son-in-law from the right – a Ted Cruze/Evan McMullin Republican, and a retired college professor from the left – Occupy Democrats. Both see through some of the falsehoods of the ARRF, but accept other parts of it!

    Overall excellent summary and essay!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. “the out-sized role of Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks in creating this whole ball of wax really cannot be denied — to the extent that any analysis that avoids mentioning this will not be worth very much.”

    The quote above comes at the half-way point of the essay: the author writes almost 6,000 words before finally getting to gist of the problem. “Finally!”, I say to myself. “Finally he will get to what really matters!” But no, it was not to be. The author then goes on to… practically ignore this pivotal issue in the final 6,000 words of the essay!

    The author commits the same mistake he accuses others of: his essay is not worth very much because he completely avoids the central question implied by his own words in the above quote: what explains the fact that the Jews were so successful in manipulating the goyyim to the extent that the goyyim now have a totally new belief system?

    His essay is of little worth because it skirts this fundamental question of our time.

    If he rewrites the essay pinpointing how the Jews went about constructing each of the four pillars of the new religion, then it will be worthwhile reading his analysis.

    But, of course, an investigation of the sort already exists: Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. A good strategy would be to apply Professor MacDonald’s methodology to each of those four pillars mentioned in the essay, and only then will it be possible to unpack the “ball of wax” concocted by the Jews.

    Kevin MacDonald has given us a key and opened a few doors – Boasian anthropology, Freud’s psychoanalysis, The Frankfurt School — to let us get a glimpse of the inner workings of the Jewish Method. We should all go out (and this includes the author, Jonathan Revusky) and use this key and open as many other doors as we can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    If he rewrites the essay pinpointing how the Jews went about constructing each of the four pillars of the new religion, then it will be worthwhile reading his analysis.
     
    I agree - these things that Revusky is writing about so well, are dominated by Jews and their media.

    Face it, Christianity and Judaism are at loggerheads - they are different - Jews see it as a life and death thought war. Whereas Christianity is only beginning to comprehend what is happening.

    For whatever reason, voting for Trump was the first shot from the Christian side.

    Sadly it looks as if Trump is going against his campaign words and is bringing us a war heavy Jew administration.

    Not to worry, because it is so intellectually superior in matters of real goodness, a new better Christianity will arise.

    Peace --- Art
    , @Rich
    I can't agree with the supposition that the "Jews" were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF. Religious Jews gain little from PC. There were a lot of ethnic, agnostic Jews who chose this leftist path, but in America at least, they were merely following the thoughts and actions of the leading Anglo-Germans who ran the country when they got here. Fanatical egalitarianism was more a product of New England Protestants, not Eastern European Jews. The War Between the States, the civil rights movement, feminism, were all products of fanatical Protestants seeking dragons to slay. Many ethnic Jews latched onto this as a means of acceptance into the ruling class of the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    My own coinage of terms has been to call it ‘PC-cult-think’. It’s a secular religion which spawns fanaticism in some adherents who go on to play the role of modern day Red Guards, sniffing out heretics and other enemies and at the very least intimidating the entire society. The majority of people are just conformists who go along with whatever the prevailing trends are. If they’re told by the court experts that some Broadway play is a work of genius then they’ll parrot that without ever coming out and saying the emperor has no clothes.
    Having been acquainted with some loud avowed atheists I’ve seen that their main activity seems to be self-congratulation. They get together and bash the hicks, scouting out the latest example of faith healing nonsense and feeling smug and superior by contrasting themselves with the unenlightened ones. However, almost to a person they’re followers of the PC-cult-think religion. They simply traded one religion for another and are now rivals fighting for the supremacy of their denomination against all others.
    I’ve noticed that the greater the gap between the tenets of this religion and observed reality the greater the intensity and shrillness of the rhetoric coming through the loudspeaker so as to scare one off from lingering too long at that spot. They’ve been running a reign of terror in this country, intimidating and browbeating people and putting them in fear for their ability to hold a job. Although a legitimate candidate, at least as legitimate as those other bozos, most people swayed by what Trump was saying seemed to feel it best to keep their thoughts to themselves during the campaign. Wherever he now goes people spontaneously break out in applause and cheers so it’s apparent that many people were getting tired of the Red Guard stranglehold. Reality can break through now and then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Sir,

    You seem to either have some real basic reasoning problems, or to be a very disingenuous guy. Among other things, you seamlessly jump from 9/11 to the matter of separation between Church and State.

    The only reason Catholics are so “tolerant”, as in the episode of your friend’s former religious buddies, is that they’re losing. When they were winning, they weren’t as tolerant. Maybe you could extend this phenomenon into other religious ideologies (or ideological religions).

    If I can discern a purpose in your text, it is that you seem to have a problem with some groups of people asserting their cultural hegemony. You seem to reduce this problem into one of sanity (yours) against insanity (everyone else’s).

    I didn’t read the whole text. Maybe later, if I can endure it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    The only reason Catholics are so “tolerant”, as in the episode of your friend’s former religious buddies, is that they’re losing. When they were winning, they weren’t as tolerant. Maybe you could extend this phenomenon into other religious ideologies (or ideological religions).
     
    That is exactly right!

    “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power[/money].” [...]

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”

     
    - http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692056

    Christopher Hitchens on Holocaust Denial, Religion and Free Speech 1/2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIU96N7ciXM

    Christopher Hitchens - Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4

    Opus Dei & Christian Dominion

    Forget about Dan Brown’s fantasy conspiracy cult, this is a story of the real Opus Dei


    The American founders clearly recognized the history and danger of any ‘Christian Dominion’ as eloquently stated by James Madison:

    Experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and virtue of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
     
    - http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/opus-dei-christian-dominion/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Miro23 says:

    “You see, a lot of people will proclaim (even loudly) their belief in all sorts of dogmas when they feel it is in their interest to do so, that this is what is expected of them. That is true now just as it was in Medieval Spain or Soviet Russia.”

    I think that this is it, and the key words are in their interest to do so.

    Speaking about Spain, there is a Socialist/Partido Popular split from the national level down to villages with the elected party (national, provincial or local) having its friends and clients accompanied by a good deal of insider dealing, favouritism and straightforward corruption.

    Anyone in business (corrupt or otherwise) or in a public position, has an interest in aligning with the dominant party or at least to not oppose it. When the power shifts, so do the “chaqueteros” (jacket people – as in putting on a different jacket to suit the fashion) and all kinds of newly expressed doubts/disappointment are voiced about their previous power holding friends (now that their power has gone).

    And conversely, looking from the top down, national power holders need to consolidate their power, with the spiritual aspect being a recognized and effective method – laying claim to the spiritual areas of the human psyche (and they’ve been doing it for some time e.g. Roman Emperors claiming divinity, or Charlemagne’s Papal Coronation justifying his status as Holy Roman Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire).

    If you wanted to get ahead in the USSR you needed to be a Party member which involved public voicing of the “prayers” (stock Marxist phrases).

    In the current US, the “prayer book” is the PC package, and anyone in a public life needs to be quite familiar with it to get ahead.

    And the power holders enforcing it are Jewish/Zionist, as shown by its essential elements, the “original sin” of the previous Anglo power holders, the worthlessness of their Christian religion and Constitution, Jewish martyrization in the Holocaust (dying for all humanity), hunting down and prosecuting heretics (questioning Jewish power, questioning the Holocaust, questioning the events of 9/11 etc.)

    In fact the Holocaust and 9/11 have turned into the new “loaves and fishes” or Papally Approved Miracles with facts not getting in the way of Group Unity.

    And an interesting aspect not covered in the article, is the way that these Power/Religious alliances eventually deteriorate and collapse in similar ways.

    For example, corrupt and sleazy late Roman paganism had nothing to do with earlier Greek classicism in the tradition of Homer. The corruption and sleaze were plain for anyone to see, and the ambience opened the way for the adoption a clean and ethical early Christianity. Equally, by the late Middle Ages, a rich and corrupt Church selling indulgences had nothing to do with early European Celtic monasticism, weakening Catholic establishment power and setting the scene for its rejection through Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

    In the case of modern US Judaism, the self interested promotion and sleaze has nothing to do with the closed and disciplined early religious life in Eastern Europe. The present corruption and sleaze is plain to see, with the “victim” narrative going to bizarre extremes – and getting public rejection (e.g. right of access to female toilets for males who think they are females, or state support for schools introducing children to the “alternative and equal” homosexual lifestyle, or encouraging “gender neutral” behavior).

    The article could have looked for more positive routes out of the mess, for example in the US Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” If rights of taxation and spending were returned to states and all issues were truly debated and voted at the local level in Swiss style (rather than centrally imposed), many of the US problems would disappear – but of course, the disadvantage would be a system not suited to the lazy person. Everyone would need to engage and contribute and dedicate time to it.

    One sentence in the article that I would question is the following:

    “Separation of Church and State”, which is, of course, a founding principle of American government.

    The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    “Making no law” means that it is perfectly OK for someone in government to put up a Christmas tree on public land since there is no law “prohibiting the free exercise off..” The Constitution doesn’t have an opinion on it.

    The authors of the Constitution were religious people and it this was taken for granted. George Washington repeatedly expressed the value of Christianity in daily life and required his troops to attend religious services . The whole PC anti-Christian edifice of State/Religion separation is built on an obscure reference in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802, which had nothing at all to do with any legislation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. alexander says:

    Dear JR,

    I find this article somewhat lost in the inanities of superfluous things that seem to function as the main discourses of our time.

    That is too bad.

    These “inanities of superfluous things” serve to blanket over the core
    “reality” of the United States, over the last sixteen years.

    Namely that the American people, on the whole, were “deceived” into war…… A war,( or series of wars )which have extracted tens of trillions of dollars from our balance sheet and caused the deaths of over a million innocent people.

    This grotesque “defrauding”of the taxpayer and the utter lack of accountability for any of it, is the most profound issue of our time.

    All the other “issues” which you raise are essentially superfluous .

    Imagine a scenario where big media has convinced you that the Norwegian air force (not the Japanese) had bombed Pearl Harbor…..

    And Americans, who have trusted them to be wholly forthright on such grave matters, agree to go to war against Norway…and obliterate the entire country in the process.

    This is EXACTLY what happened when we were all told, with resolute certainty, that Saddam had “anthrax-ed” our news rooms and capitol.

    Then , after the fact, we find out the truth ……

    This is where we are today…this is the very core issue of our time.

    There has been absolutely “zero” accountability for this monstrous fraud.

    The fact that these same defrauders have not been remanded to federal prison or Guantanamo bay, but have been allowed to continue “pontificating” on various social identity issues(such as you enumerate) is tragic .

    It is the equivalent of watching Bernie Madoff, after having been found guilty of defrauding his investors out of ALL their money AND multiple, multiple homicides….not only walking away Scot-free….but able to expound, ad nauseam, on issues of moral relevance and social justice.

    The fact you are caught up in what he/they have to say, after these heinous criminal actions have occurred , is sad, JR.

    Very sad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Renoman says:

    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.

    Read More
    • Disagree: CK, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @David
    I agree. The following passage is a typical example:

    Now, cutting to the chase, if you will… does Scahill really buy the official version of what happened on 9/11? Hmm… Damned if I know. It’s the same general problem as I outlined above, isn’t it?
     
    What of it is worth saying could be said in four words.

    Condensing his thoughts seems like one of a writer's fundamental duties. At least a writer presenting ideas he values to people he respects.

    , @Anonomousetoo
    Those of us over 75 too.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Brevity! Learn about it.
     
    Brevity has its merits and, other things equal, it's better to say the same thing in fewer words, I suppose.

    However, an ignoramus who has absolutely nothing to say preaching brevity is like a eunuch preaching chastity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. n230099 says:

    This piece is an example of someone that completely overthinks everything. We used to believe these kind of conversations were of real value but, then again, we were doing peyote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Or is it when 'YOU were doing peyote'?

    I found Revusky to be spot on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Thank you Mr Revusky for this thought provoking piece. And by the way, it wasn’t too long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. KA says:

    Dear Muslima

    Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and … yawn … don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/26/sexism-and-the-new-atheism/

    Richard Dawkins to Rebecca Watson who protested against unwelcome sexual advances by a fellow atheist in a meeting also attended by Dawkins.
    It s obvious that Dawkins suffer from a number of congenital defects – islamophobia, tunnel vision, inflexibility. inability to shift set when evidences require him to shift ,and a fixed world view which persuades and forces him to fit each and every phenomena to that world view . It is a religion . A religion of extreme idiocy sold as extremely unique liberation of mind . Media glitz ,media exposure, media courting sustain him Automatic denunciation — how can’t you support X,Y Z of atheism and sexual liberation – guides the discourse that Dawkins kind of non Muslima is always ever poised guarnatted to win . Devil is to the believer what the Muslima is to Dawkins kind of shit filled head

    Inquisition appeared and survived in a unique juncture of history . It was a response Modern age atheism is not a response . It is a phenomenon that was contrived and spread to weaken any fath based collective resistance against vulgarity,corporatism,against exploitation whether by Christian in India or Indonesia or China or by Catholics in Central America or by Muslim in Gaza or Iraq or Afghanistan . They are poor visible powerless and not so bewitched by the corporate and market , they have offered the greatest opportunity to the new age intellectual orphan like Dawkins and Sam Harris .They have not hesitated to use it for simple personal advancement like any other crooks would do

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Miro23 says:

    Scahill begins by simply affirming his faith in the official story. Listen to him. He really sounds like somebody reciting scripture. He says: “I believe that the United States was attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda by men flying airplanes into buildings…” (DEEP STRUCTURE TRANSLATION: “I am not a heretic.” I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost…)

    There’s no point the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth analyzing in any more detail the collapse of Building 7 and the other two towers.

    They may as well question the scientific basis of the Miracles of the Saints and present their results to the Vatican.

    While power in the US is in Jewish hands they are wasting their time. The media has a pre prepared playbook of stock phrases to deal with Heretics ( “Conspiracy Theory”, “Fake News” etc.).

    So, looking to their interests, 94% of US architects in their recent National Convention, voted against a reexamination of the official 9/11 collapse story, although they all know exactly what happened (and how the 2750 Americans in the towers died).

    But should Judaism/Zionism lose its dominant power in the US, they would probably all become responsible professionals and discover that an investigation would have some merit. After all they really had doubts about the official account from the start and need to stand up for truth and justice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Chridtopher Hitchens was fat bloated narcissistic homosexual War Criminal Pansy who cheered on mass murder in Iraq in the the name of New Athiest Religious Fanactism.

    The young English W0men of Dawkin’s New Athiest England are being raped by the Mohammadan Army.

    Monty Python’s Eric Idle is an enthusiast for the mass murder of millions of Conservative Orthodox Christian Russians because they won’t give homosexual-pedophiles like the late Graham Chapman the right to exchange wedding bowels in a Russian Conservative Orthodox Christian Church.

    The new Athiest deserve to be violently eleminated from the Planet Earth….along with the New Atheist Nuns….Pussy Riot….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    exchange wedding bowels...lulz!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Wally says: • Website

    As laughable as the storyline is, and as stated by Revusky, the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ is merely another manifestation of religion. A religion which provides incredible profit and political power to supremacist Jews.

    Put simply, there were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    “Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish “holocaust” and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the “survivors”? Because it “dishonors the dead”? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble.”

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

    Must reads:
    Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries

    http://holocausthandbooks.com

    and:

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1869?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laugh Track

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg
     
    That's a very interesting jpeg of all those brief news clippings. However, it is hella difficult to read as it is low rez and trying to enlarge it just makes it fuzzier.

    By any chance do you have a link to a higher resolution version?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. utu says:

    If people in the West started reading and then rereading when older Jaroslav Hašek’s “The Good Soldier Švejk” we would have no problems Revusky is trying to describe and systematize here. His taxonomic and scientific approach that even invents its own nomenclature and acronyms clearly indicates that he did not read The Good Soldier Švejk and has no clue how to navigate the reality.

    Revusky you are an awful bore. But do not try Švejk at this point. You are too old. It won’t fix you. You are beyond repair.

    There was this joke about homo sovieticus that was told in communist countries. A Soviet man is interviewed by a western journalist and asked about his position on various political issues. On one issue he gives an answer that line by line Pravda position. On another he gives Izvestia position, and so on. The journalist gets exasperated and asks him “Don’t you have your own opinions?” The Soviet man answers: “Sure I do, but I do not agree with them.”

    People found this joke very funny and thought that the reality that created such a pathetic figure like this Soviet man was the most awful. Well, after 40 years of living in America I think that the homo sovieticus from the joke was on much higher level of awareness than the contemporary homo americanus. The joke is no longer funny. Nothing is funny in America because America is really scary, partly because that even the ones who try to see through it, who are in dissent like Mr. Revusky here, more often than not turn out to be monomaniacal bores.

    Mr. Revusky has not achieved the level of not agreeing with himself, yet. It is a koan. You will either get it or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Humphries
    Fabulous comment. Monomaniacal bore indeed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. The Four Girly Boys of the Enlightenment…cheering on the mass rape of the Women of Europa and America by the Mohammadan Rape Jism Army.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Wally says: • Website
    @n230099
    This piece is an example of someone that completely overthinks everything. We used to believe these kind of conversations were of real value but, then again, we were doing peyote.

    Or is it when ‘YOU were doing peyote’?

    I found Revusky to be spot on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Yeesh
    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn't saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was.

    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two. I think i was 16 in 76 when I first argued that atheism was its own religious position and not the neutral position being argued. Not long after that I was able to point out that if leftists were correct that morality [along with the rest of experience] was subjective, then their own moral values like tolerance were no less subjective than christianitys. By the early eighties Books like the world according to garp were making the case as explicitly, while leftism had actually developed several quasi religions that they claimed incorporated their beliefs. Cults, new age fads, and western reinterpretations of Hinduism Islam and Buddhism.By this time I had read all sorts of philosophers who seemed to make the same claim.And of course along comes mencius moldbug with a detailed provenance of leftism from Cromwell, again Yarvin is not original either but he was at least entertaining and erudite

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two.
     
    You should have stopped when you saw the name Jonathan Revusky in the byline. This moron is a 9/11 Truther-Douchebag, a hopelessly conceited bad-faith arguer, and a cowardly word-mincer hiding behind his keyboard and pretending to be some sort of modern day Valiant-for-Truth. Like Paul Craig Roberts, he is a perpetually deluded simpleton who thinks he's a genius, a halfwit who thinks he's a one-and-a-half wit. Just avoid him altogether.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I can remember one of the columnists here some years ago, mad at Ann Coulter because she had shed some light upon the vast civilization gap between Mexico and the (however decaying) first world (it was about marriage with teens being, albeit not too explicitly, legal over there. After all, when you know no law would change attitudes, it’s nor unreasonable to legalize the conduct at hand, and there’s no way you won’t have early-teen girls sexed in high-libido countries unless some system of perfectly non-liberal governance like Islam isn’t in place).

    The main point of his blame was to link her to Hitler/Nazis.
    It’s a conditioned reflex.

    You turn a person/idea/culture into a symbol of shame and wrongness, and throw that word at whatever/whoever opposes you in any way, shaming them by fallacious association, and betting on people’s lacking BSQs and openness to embrace fallacies.

    It’s a way to “win” debates that couldn’t be won by actually debating.

    Where you are wrong is in thinking the problem is local/circumstantial/solvable.
    Kick it out of the door; it’ll come back through the window.

    Erase “Nazi/Hitler/fascist” and you have a lot of X-phobic and Y-ist.
    Among the ole-time labels you mention heretic but forget mad/insane.
    Sanatoriums where the place of choice for restraining conspiracy theorists for quite a long time in human history.

    What you hopelessly fight against, like Don Quixote, is the root of human nature.
    Several times you refer to the Middle Ages, so you know it’s dynamics inherent to human business (you should also know that like IQ can’t be changed, BSQ can’t be changed. If you were a HIQI, that’s because in the pre-Internet time, as Unz has written about himself, there just was no way to access a wealth of information. Once you were exposed to information you absorbed it. Your BSQ was never low). Then, it seems, you forget it and keep hoping and fighting again.

    I can’t make myself enthusiastic about replacing current historical and scientific myths, deception, and orthodoxy (and its devotees’ intolerance) with the next ones. Because that’s the only thing that can and will happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Old hist(e)rical SCW (social christian warriors) are against same-sex marriage versus new hist(e)rical SCW (social communist warriors) [who] are supporters that fu…king OTHER people can marriage one each other. Ok ok. Jewsuis versus Marx.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.

    That the young are losing any ability to think (despite their IQs, or apparent IQs, rising due to the Flynn effect) is something we know.

    We also know that a few are proud about this condition and see it as an accomplishment.

    Very favorable conditions for potential, incoming dictatorship.
    Those who “have no patience” to use their mind and do the effort to understand and learn have been the most loved by every authoritarian power, no matter the time in history and place. Wonder why?

    Excuse me but I see nothing to celebrate.

    Look at the schools, teachers and learners, of a nation, and you’ll see the future of that nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Rising IQs because of lowered IQ standards.

    Everyone gets a trophy.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Neil Postman covers this very well in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Pirouette says:

    Read this from after a late breakfast through to sitting down with a coffee after doing the washing up, by hand, after lunch on Boxing Day. It is quite an impressive piece and in its own way, comprehensive.

    The four pillars of the new religion is the destruction of white races, white nationalism, traditional God-based religions, and man-woman marriage for the sake of creating the next generation.

    ARRF for all its blind acceptance by the elites, is having serious problems imposing the first of these manifest in the ghettoisation of communities.

    In the second instance there is some success but with the perhaps too frequent Mossad false flag terrorist atrocities such as Neice, Paris, German Christmas Market there is a widespread alarm that open borders means more terrorism even though most are unaware that all attrocities carried out in the west are false flags instigated by Mossad. Nationalism with guarded borders is becoming an issue to counteract Mossad terrorism.

    Traditional God based religion has been on the wane for a long time since even the most ordinary person realises that it is a political system designed to collect the meagre resources of the poor and place them in the hands of the rich bishops. Thus ARRF’s success in this area is generally pretty good.

    Finally there is the anti marriage for procreation aspect. Sex with someone of the opposite sex is still the preference of the large majority. It is only the elites, societies’ posers and social climbers that promote this…but along with this is the Jewish perversion and preference for paedophilia (not covered by the author) that is used to blackmail the elites by the Jews.

    The problem with the homosexual bit (anti man-woman marriage lot) is that there is enormous evidence that paedophilia is most common amongst the homosexual community. The vast majority abhor child abuse, especially sexually, and no amount of indoctrinating four year old school children by the Jew run states seems to change this.

    The ARRF preference for child abuse (and correspondingly animal abuse…think kosher and halal slaughter as well as factory farming) is probably its Achilles heel! The general public hate child abuse and animal abuse, to the extent that they will lynch perpetrators.

    The Jewish bullying instinct cum claiming victim hood at the same time together with abuse of the weak, whether people (goys) or animals, Palestinians Muslims or Christians (10% of Palestinians are Christian), and all the other poor and/or weak peoples will be the downfall of ARRF and Holocaustianity.

    Child abuse, animal abuse and congenital lying will bring the whole facade crashing down one day. What will be the trigger is hard to say, but the demise of this modern Jewish cult is clearly there in its construction for all to see.

    Clearly the abolition of cash and the forced adoption of electronic credit will be the first major mistake they will make. This one act will bring back the age old tradition of barter, and to avoid electronic records Tallysticks will be reintroduced after nearly 200 years absence from the market place, to be used in deals instead of written or electronic contracts.

    Hand written or typewriter written letters will be hand delivered to avoid email and State controlled postal services. People will go back to bottling their own food, making their own clothes and shoes, and nature cures (herbalism) will replace the ludicrously expensive Jewish controlled pharmaceutical drug industry rip-off.

    Essentially what will happen as the Jews exert even more fascist control over the world is that the people will create their own alternative sub culture that does not utilise money per se. Barter, self-help, intimate community and integral honesty in all things will replace the official State perversions.

    The fascist Jews will ruthlessly destroy this alternative society where ever they find it, but no matter what these fascist Jews and their shills do, the new alternative ‘no money’ world will flourish and the Jewish supremacy will self destruct on the back of its intrinsic evil.

    And now for afternoon tea!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. CK says:

    When they burn the heretic he only suffers for the short time it takes for the flames to do their work.
    Within ARRF, the heretic is no longer burned, instead his business is destroyed, his career is truncated, his income is diminished, his voice is silenced, he is no-platformed for the rest of his days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Colleen Pater
    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two. I think i was 16 in 76 when I first argued that atheism was its own religious position and not the neutral position being argued. Not long after that I was able to point out that if leftists were correct that morality [along with the rest of experience] was subjective, then their own moral values like tolerance were no less subjective than christianitys. By the early eighties Books like the world according to garp were making the case as explicitly, while leftism had actually developed several quasi religions that they claimed incorporated their beliefs. Cults, new age fads, and western reinterpretations of Hinduism Islam and Buddhism.By this time I had read all sorts of philosophers who seemed to make the same claim.And of course along comes mencius moldbug with a detailed provenance of leftism from Cromwell, again Yarvin is not original either but he was at least entertaining and erudite

    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two.

    You should have stopped when you saw the name Jonathan Revusky in the byline. This moron is a 9/11 Truther-Douchebag, a hopelessly conceited bad-faith arguer, and a cowardly word-mincer hiding behind his keyboard and pretending to be some sort of modern day Valiant-for-Truth. Like Paul Craig Roberts, he is a perpetually deluded simpleton who thinks he’s a genius, a halfwit who thinks he’s a one-and-a-half wit. Just avoid him altogether.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    No one required either of you brilliant people to click on the article.
    Colleen was apparently not wise enough to recognize the author's byline according to the I.D.
    I.D. does the invective thing almost as well as it was described in the article. "Truther-Douchebag", "cowardly word-mincer", "perpetually deluded simpleton", "halfwit", not a lot of intellect in that spew. Have to agree however if something offends you; don't do it.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum.

    You, on the other hand, have managed a few ill considered and mostly worthless ad homonym attacks in your comments, but thanks for sharing anyway (kindly forgive my sarcasm).

    p.s. Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Since David Ray Griffin was mentioned…

    David Ray Griffin….the Pope of The 9/11 Truther Movement…is another sociopath who is on-board with the mass importation of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army. Professor Griffin is one main reasons why I violently hate 9/11 Truthers with every fiber of my being!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."
    - Germar Rudolf

    Sorry old boy, science refutes the government's laughable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    http://www.hangthebankers.com/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/

    , @MarkinPNW
    So apparently this "David Ray Griffin" fellow is an example of Revusky's "On being partially pregnant", still no reason to sterotype a whole "movement" on the basis of one of the proponents obvious flaws.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Professor Griffin is one main reasons why I violently hate 9/11 Truthers with every fiber of my being!!!

    Nope, that would be your stupidity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Bertrand Russell once wrote that he was neither a Christian nor a Communist, believing that both were, in the strictest sense of the word, religions–only the deities were different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. anon says: • Disclaimer

    You neglected to mention in your piece that a majority of Muslims are a part of and vote for the commie intolerant left. They hate Christians as much as the atheist. They are a part of the people of color coalition that votes as a block to strip the rights of the mostly white people on the right in their own country.
    What a shill article. It starts out the intolerant left and how the others are so tolerant and then on to a ban muslim clothing on the beach in France. Just Ban the Muslims instead. Hows that grab you for a thought process? I swear you most writers work for the government re-education division.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Sam J. says:

    My “All work and no play moment” was 9-11 and specifically building #7. You don’t need to be an Architect or Engineer to determine with 100% reliability that on 9-11 the buildings were demoed.

    I’m going to strip out all the bullshit and prove that building #7 was demoed in some manner. All the 9-11 talk by the lying “Spoofers” is just a distraction. It it 100% that building #7 was demoed and could not have been brought down by fire because of the basic physics of the fall. You don’t need to rely on anyone to know the truth. Look with your own eyes. Basic high school physics. Undisputable. Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

    All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don’t thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

    It’s makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where it was light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

    Once you realize 9-11 is a big lie you soon realize there’s a LOT of lies and what you thought about your country is no longer true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Once you realize 9-11 is a big lie you soon realize there’s a LOT of lies and what you thought about your country is no longer true.
     
    Mother of God, will you twits ever shut the hell up? Terrorism or conspiracy, it just makes no fucking difference at all.
    , @Anonymous
    Didn't Unz make a separate thread for all of this 9-11 talk?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Agent76 says:

    Oct 8, 2016 Afghanistan: 15 Years of Invasion and Occupation

    15 years after NATO’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 9/11 and Al Qaeda lies that were used to justify the war have disappeared. Now the truth about oil and gas, mineral wealth, opium and naked imperial ambition are all that remain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Another ringer from Revusky! Thanks for this piece, which nicely summarizes the case against our new official state religion of Holocaustianity.

    The point of the boiling frog story, of course, is that if change occurs gradually, people can remain surprisingly unaware of just how extreme the situation has become.

    In addition to the existence of the internet, one important reason why opposition to movement AARF is gaining steam is because it is no longer progressing gradually; it is now moving very rapidly–rapidly enough even for the dimmest people to notice. Think about it: as recently as 2003, it was still possible for US states to have anti-sodomy laws; but within a decade, gay marriage was made legal and legally obligatory everywhere in the US. People have still not had a chance to catch their breath from that one, and now the they’re already moving on to tranny bathrooms.

    Now, I would submit that ARRF, like these other religions, also has its main dogmas and such, except that they are not officially outlined anywhere.

    Another way of looking at it is that those doctrines don’t necessarily have to be outlined anywhere in particular when they are constantly being pushed on you from everywhere at once.

    Anyway, good job, Jonathan. Keep ‘em coming …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Wally says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Since David Ray Griffin was mentioned...


    David Ray Griffin....the Pope of The 9/11 Truther Movement...is another sociopath who is on-board with the mass importation of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army. Professor Griffin is one main reasons why I violently hate 9/11 Truthers with every fiber of my being!!!

    “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”
    - Germar Rudolf

    Sorry old boy, science refutes the government’s laughable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    http://www.hangthebankers.com/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Wally

    9/11 Truthers don't believe in science..because they don't believe in the scientific process of argumentation...Contact the Engineering and Physics departments of elite Universities and demand a hearing in front of faculty and Grad students...give a detailed scientific and physics presentation on the collapse of the TT and Building 7...and explain why the faculty and grad students in these physics and engineering departments at these elite universities have a substandard grasp of first semester freshman physics....


    In the meantime....FUCK OFF!!!
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Sorry old boy, science refutes the government’s laughable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/"

    Utter nonsense. 2500 architects and engineers (if indeed, they all really are s0) is not "science".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @edNels
    The best article I've read here! You can really make w0rds flow too. I only read 1/3 so far, will continue the rest.

    The phrase that comes to mind is: It couldn't happen here.

    A book The Beast: about the early developments in '30's Germany makes believable that just folks, have been easily steered into... Inquisition kinds of things.

    This artical is extremely timely, checking the general indicators.

    Oh, and Scahill, well of course he tows the line, but maybe he just had desire to ''differentiate his personal style from the guy who drove his Mercedes 100 mph into tree, these journos need to keep current, with some by line, different look, they compete a lot.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    Thank you for that link who ever ya are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Art says:
    @Fin of a Cobra
    "the out-sized role of Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks in creating this whole ball of wax really cannot be denied — to the extent that any analysis that avoids mentioning this will not be worth very much."

    The quote above comes at the half-way point of the essay: the author writes almost 6,000 words before finally getting to gist of the problem. "Finally!", I say to myself. "Finally he will get to what really matters!" But no, it was not to be. The author then goes on to… practically ignore this pivotal issue in the final 6,000 words of the essay!

    The author commits the same mistake he accuses others of: his essay is not worth very much because he completely avoids the central question implied by his own words in the above quote: what explains the fact that the Jews were so successful in manipulating the goyyim to the extent that the goyyim now have a totally new belief system?

    His essay is of little worth because it skirts this fundamental question of our time.

    If he rewrites the essay pinpointing how the Jews went about constructing each of the four pillars of the new religion, then it will be worthwhile reading his analysis.

    But, of course, an investigation of the sort already exists: Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique. A good strategy would be to apply Professor MacDonald's methodology to each of those four pillars mentioned in the essay, and only then will it be possible to unpack the "ball of wax" concocted by the Jews.

    Kevin MacDonald has given us a key and opened a few doors – Boasian anthropology, Freud's psychoanalysis, The Frankfurt School -- to let us get a glimpse of the inner workings of the Jewish Method. We should all go out (and this includes the author, Jonathan Revusky) and use this key and open as many other doors as we can.

    If he rewrites the essay pinpointing how the Jews went about constructing each of the four pillars of the new religion, then it will be worthwhile reading his analysis.

    I agree – these things that Revusky is writing about so well, are dominated by Jews and their media.

    Face it, Christianity and Judaism are at loggerheads – they are different – Jews see it as a life and death thought war. Whereas Christianity is only beginning to comprehend what is happening.

    For whatever reason, voting for Trump was the first shot from the Christian side.

    Sadly it looks as if Trump is going against his campaign words and is bringing us a war heavy Jew administration.

    Not to worry, because it is so intellectually superior in matters of real goodness, a new better Christianity will arise.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Brás Cubas
    Sir,

    You seem to either have some real basic reasoning problems, or to be a very disingenuous guy. Among other things, you seamlessly jump from 9/11 to the matter of separation between Church and State.

    The only reason Catholics are so "tolerant", as in the episode of your friend's former religious buddies, is that they're losing. When they were winning, they weren't as tolerant. Maybe you could extend this phenomenon into other religious ideologies (or ideological religions).

    If I can discern a purpose in your text, it is that you seem to have a problem with some groups of people asserting their cultural hegemony. You seem to reduce this problem into one of sanity (yours) against insanity (everyone else's).

    I didn't read the whole text. Maybe later, if I can endure it.

    The only reason Catholics are so “tolerant”, as in the episode of your friend’s former religious buddies, is that they’re losing. When they were winning, they weren’t as tolerant. Maybe you could extend this phenomenon into other religious ideologies (or ideological religions).

    That is exactly right!

    “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power[/money].” [...]

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692056

    Christopher Hitchens on Holocaust Denial, Religion and Free Speech 1/2

    Christopher Hitchens – Mother Teresa: Hell’s Angel

    Opus Dei & Christian Dominion

    Forget about Dan Brown’s fantasy conspiracy cult, this is a story of the real Opus Dei

    The American founders clearly recognized the history and danger of any ‘Christian Dominion’ as eloquently stated by James Madison:

    Experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and virtue of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/opus-dei-christian-dominion/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    then there's Richard Spencer, come along (or created by the usual puppet masters ??) to give Nazis a bad name --

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/19/jewish-leaders-in-richard-spencers-hometown-targeted-in-posting-on-neo-nazi-website/?utm_term=.811901cabd24

    Spencer defines the phenomenon that Revusky describes: fanatics from all directions are vainglorious and seek power.

    Dr. Matt Johnson explains that the better-best-only appropriate response to oppressors is the Jesusian response: to go about doing good, accepting the blows along the way

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhmsleqNdGM

    Spencer's actions are guaranteed to provoke retaliation and smearing of legitimate opposition to elitist oppression, which causes this skeptic to wonder if Spencer is not as much an asset of the CIA as folks like Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were when they got their start. Spencer's behavior definitely follows the modus operandi of the authoritarians who want to be in charge of tikuning the olam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. I link youtube videos of political heretics in my blog. Here are three from this year.

    Here is a great clip that exposes fake news about Syria. Don’t expect this news from a reporter who was in Syria to appear in our corporate press.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

    Trump was the first 9-11 Truther. Watch this video of a news report on that day where Trump says that an airplane couldn’t have knocked down the WTCs, and states bombs must have been used too. I find it interesting that this was never used to attack Trump, perhaps because it supports 9-11 truthers.

    Here is a great video clip of an American Admiral baffled by common sense offered by a reporter who explains that NATO’s expansion is provocative, not Russia’s reaction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    Interesting clip of Donald Trump's reaction to the collapse of the WTC Towers on 9/11.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w

    Trump was the first 9-11 Truther. Watch this video of a news report on that day where Trump says that an airplane couldn’t have knocked down the WTCs, and states bombs must have been used too. I find it interesting that this was never used to attack Trump, perhaps because it supports 9-11 truthers.
     
    This is probably right. No doubt the 9/11 planners didn't want it to become an open issue in the election.

    A separate question is why Trump also decided not to use it? Maybe he needed (some) Jewish support, or (more likely) he incorporated it in some kind of specific deal with the Zionist branch. On the one hand counter cultural Jewish activists mostly did everything in their power to stop him getting elected, and on the other he knows exactly how the Towers came down but officially agrees with the Big Lie.

    Conclusion - that he's allied with the Zionist Neo-cons but intends to fight corporations/Wall St. on the economic front (read Breitbart comments for a clue - they're all for Israel and MENA wars but want to stop immigration and outsourcing).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @FKA Max

    The only reason Catholics are so “tolerant”, as in the episode of your friend’s former religious buddies, is that they’re losing. When they were winning, they weren’t as tolerant. Maybe you could extend this phenomenon into other religious ideologies (or ideological religions).
     
    That is exactly right!

    “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a men’s character, give him power[/money].” [...]

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”

     
    - http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692056

    Christopher Hitchens on Holocaust Denial, Religion and Free Speech 1/2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIU96N7ciXM

    Christopher Hitchens - Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4

    Opus Dei & Christian Dominion

    Forget about Dan Brown’s fantasy conspiracy cult, this is a story of the real Opus Dei


    The American founders clearly recognized the history and danger of any ‘Christian Dominion’ as eloquently stated by James Madison:

    Experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and virtue of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
     
    - http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/opus-dei-christian-dominion/

    then there’s Richard Spencer, come along (or created by the usual puppet masters ??) to give Nazis a bad name –

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/19/jewish-leaders-in-richard-spencers-hometown-targeted-in-posting-on-neo-nazi-website/?utm_term=.811901cabd24

    Spencer defines the phenomenon that Revusky describes: fanatics from all directions are vainglorious and seek power.

    Dr. Matt Johnson explains that the better-best-only appropriate response to oppressors is the Jesusian response: to go about doing good, accepting the blows along the way

    Spencer’s actions are guaranteed to provoke retaliation and smearing of legitimate opposition to elitist oppression, which causes this skeptic to wonder if Spencer is not as much an asset of the CIA as folks like Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were when they got their start. Spencer’s behavior definitely follows the modus operandi of the authoritarians who want to be in charge of tikuning the olam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    FKA MAX

    You are seeking the approval and respect of the Democratic Party and the SPLC...that makes you a fool and irrelevant at a time when it is one minute before midnight demographically for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    You don't seek approval and respect from creatures that want us dead as soon as possible.


    Richard Spencer is no more, and no less racialized than Black Obama, and the Chinese Fifth Column and the Hindu Fifth Column in America.


    Just reminder:in one week...The Russian Ambassor to Turkey murdered in broad daylight...Russian Ambassador to Latin America murdered in his Moscow Apartment...two days ago, a Russian Military Passagener Jet crashes in the Baltic Sea...192 dead Russian Soldiers and one elite Russian General.

    There is an obvious pattern here....


    Barack Obama has made a genocidal declaration of a race war against European People.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. jamie b. says:

    I’m an atheist and not at all PC. And I’m hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Not at all, but I can see why PC can become its own religion. Atheism is often a part of it, if not the converse, e.g. all SJWs are some form of atheism, but not all atheists are SJws. I think the first part of the statement is overreaching some, but its a decent way to understand the author's arguments.
    , @Anonymous

    I’m an atheist and not at all PC. And I’m hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.
     
    I read a fragment of something from Bertrand Russell the other day, in which he mentioned that he was agnostic in accordance with philosophical definitions (philosophy as science, not as subjective musings), but that he felt forced to use the term "atheist" in order for conventional public perception to make effective recognition.

    "Atheism" is essentially a religious formation, in that it recognizes the human-created component of which real "existence" it denies. Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of "I don't know."
    , @fnn
    Revilo Oliver was an outspoken atheist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Yeesh
    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn't saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was.

    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really
    1) Wasn’t saying anything new, surprising or original
    2) was convinced he was.

    Always check the word-count at the top of the article. Had I done so, I would not have waded through the first 4000 dolefully uninteresting words. Come on, revusky, be at least trivially entertaining. This was interminable drudgery to read.

    I don’t want to watch videos. I want to read clear, expository English composition. Don’t bullshit me — spit it the hell out in 2000, or less, concise and well-chosen words that illustrate and summarize you central point, or at absolute most, 3 central points.

    This article is a horrifying mess, insulting to the intelligence of any who are foolish enough to read past the first few thousand dreary words.

    Read More
    • Agree: Laugh Track
    • Disagree: CK
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.
     
    That the young are losing any ability to think (despite their IQs, or apparent IQs, rising due to the Flynn effect) is something we know.

    We also know that a few are proud about this condition and see it as an accomplishment.

    Very favorable conditions for potential, incoming dictatorship.
    Those who "have no patience" to use their mind and do the effort to understand and learn have been the most loved by every authoritarian power, no matter the time in history and place. Wonder why?

    Excuse me but I see nothing to celebrate.

    Look at the schools, teachers and learners, of a nation, and you'll see the future of that nation.

    Rising IQs because of lowered IQ standards.

    Everyone gets a trophy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @jamie b.
    I'm an atheist and not at all PC. And I'm hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.

    Not at all, but I can see why PC can become its own religion. Atheism is often a part of it, if not the converse, e.g. all SJWs are some form of atheism, but not all atheists are SJws. I think the first part of the statement is overreaching some, but its a decent way to understand the author’s arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    "...all SJWs are some form of atheism..."

    Mainstream religions in America/Europe are all rather P.C.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jamie b.
    I'm an atheist and not at all PC. And I'm hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.

    I’m an atheist and not at all PC. And I’m hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.

    I read a fragment of something from Bertrand Russell the other day, in which he mentioned that he was agnostic in accordance with philosophical definitions (philosophy as science, not as subjective musings), but that he felt forced to use the term “atheist” in order for conventional public perception to make effective recognition.

    “Atheism” is essentially a religious formation, in that it recognizes the human-created component of which real “existence” it denies. Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of “I don’t know.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @jamie b.
    "...recognizes the human-created component of which real 'existence' it denies."

    This argument seems circular to me.

    "Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of 'I don’t know.'"

    There are many conceptions of God that I am agnostic about, and many that you and I both would deny. Or would you claim that Zeus just might possibly exist?

    "...agnostic in accordance with philosophical definitions..."

    Yes, strictly speaking, Zeus can't be excluded as a logical possibility. Does that make me "religious" when I deny his possibility? Again, there are many conceptions of God that I'm agnostic about, and others about which I am highly doubtful. In the end, "atheist" is the most honest label I can give myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam J.
    My “All work and no play moment” was 9-11 and specifically building #7. You don't need to be an Architect or Engineer to determine with 100% reliability that on 9-11 the buildings were demoed.

    I'm going to strip out all the bullshit and prove that building #7 was demoed in some manner. All the 9-11 talk by the lying "Spoofers" is just a distraction. It it 100% that building #7 was demoed and could not have been brought down by fire because of the basic physics of the fall. You don't need to rely on anyone to know the truth. Look with your own eyes. Basic high school physics. Undisputable. Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

    All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don't thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

    It's makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where it was light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

    Once you realize 9-11 is a big lie you soon realize there's a LOT of lies and what you thought about your country is no longer true.

    Once you realize 9-11 is a big lie you soon realize there’s a LOT of lies and what you thought about your country is no longer true.

    Mother of God, will you twits ever shut the hell up? Terrorism or conspiracy, it just makes no fucking difference at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous "handle", your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. The burkini bans aren’t so much a matter secularization as an expression of the friction between an alien, invading culture and the host population. Burkas and the like (and what they signify) are a means and manner that Muslims claim public spaces and signal that they’re aggressive and ascendant.

    Because of the cult of anti-racism, it’s impossible for a man in France to freely say that France ought to be full of Frenchmen, that he doesn’t like his villages and towns overtaken by hostile foreign peoples, that France ought to have at least a vestigial Catholic identity, and that he enjoys seeing pretty young French girls frolicking on the beaches of Marseilles in bikinis as an expression of the French way of life. As these natural and understandable objections are made impossible, a Frenchman must express them in a way that is somewhat acceptable within the cult of anti-racism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RodW
    Yes, this is true, but only half the story. The pagan French, having struggled with Catholicism for hundreds of years, have only recently become free enough to take their clothes off on the beach, both male and female together. An innocent sort of wish really. Now comes a foreign invader with the same hideous black garb that the French have only recently thrown off themselves. Of course they react strongly. And they understand that the beach is just the skirmishing line. The PC brigade all post memes on Facebook about how ridiculous and contradictory it all is, but the French will soon elect someone who bears no malice against Muslims in their own ghastly countries, but who will not let them impose their will in France.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. annamaria says:
    @Yeesh
    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn't saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was.

    “But once something gets turned into a religious dogma, doesn’t freedom of religion apply?”

    This is a clearly-articulated idea targeting both opportunists and faux revolutionaries that want to look radical while staying comfortably safe.
    This clip (linked above) should help to better understanding of the idea:
    Moreover, the indifference of the EU/US “progressives” to the massive crimes committed by NATO/US/Israel/SA in the Middle East (in the name of democracy, of course) is the symptom of the “progressives” groupthink that the author is so good at describing. The article is indeed a whiff of fresh air.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    “But once something gets turned into a religious dogma, doesn’t freedom of religion apply?”
     
    Well, at least in the United States atheists have more or less been able to establish in law that they have a freedom from religion, and arrogated to themselves (together with their tribal fellow travelers and confreres) special standing to divorce the faintest trace of religion from culture. They don't want to admit that theirs is a religion carrying with it all sorts of positive beliefs, dogma and symbols, because in such a case they'd be subject to the same regime of laws that they've used to hem in their enemies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Mr. Anon says:
    @Yeesh
    Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn't saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was.

    “Good lord. I read 1000 words before I realized this guy really, really

    1) Wasn’t saying anything new, surprising or original

    2) was convinced he was.”

    You might have added an additional point to item 1): “or right”

    I realized all that the moment I saw the byline “Jonathan Revusky”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Bill says:

    OP: read much more; write much less. Especially try reading things by smart people you anticipate you won’t agree with.

    Oh, and the article is sophomoric garbage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Miro23 says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    I link youtube videos of political heretics in my blog. Here are three from this year.

    Here is a great clip that exposes fake news about Syria. Don't expect this news from a reporter who was in Syria to appear in our corporate press.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

    Trump was the first 9-11 Truther. Watch this video of a news report on that day where Trump says that an airplane couldn't have knocked down the WTCs, and states bombs must have been used too. I find it interesting that this was never used to attack Trump, perhaps because it supports 9-11 truthers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w

    Here is a great video clip of an American Admiral baffled by common sense offered by a reporter who explains that NATO's expansion is provocative, not Russia's reaction.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5HV69LKUs

    Interesting clip of Donald Trump’s reaction to the collapse of the WTC Towers on 9/11.

    Trump was the first 9-11 Truther. Watch this video of a news report on that day where Trump says that an airplane couldn’t have knocked down the WTCs, and states bombs must have been used too. I find it interesting that this was never used to attack Trump, perhaps because it supports 9-11 truthers.

    This is probably right. No doubt the 9/11 planners didn’t want it to become an open issue in the election.

    A separate question is why Trump also decided not to use it? Maybe he needed (some) Jewish support, or (more likely) he incorporated it in some kind of specific deal with the Zionist branch. On the one hand counter cultural Jewish activists mostly did everything in their power to stop him getting elected, and on the other he knows exactly how the Towers came down but officially agrees with the Big Lie.

    Conclusion – that he’s allied with the Zionist Neo-cons but intends to fight corporations/Wall St. on the economic front (read Breitbart comments for a clue – they’re all for Israel and MENA wars but want to stop immigration and outsourcing).

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    Yea, Trump probably wants to get as much positive stuff accomplished as he can before he gets Dealy Plaza'd or Watergated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Wally
    As laughable as the storyline is, and as stated by Revusky, the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' is merely another manifestation of religion. A religion which provides incredible profit and political power to supremacist Jews.

    Put simply, there were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com


    "Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

    - Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
     

    Must reads:
    Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries
    http://holocausthandbooks.com
    and:
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?
    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    That’s a very interesting jpeg of all those brief news clippings. However, it is hella difficult to read as it is low rez and trying to enlarge it just makes it fuzzier.

    By any chance do you have a link to a higher resolution version?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. David says:
    @Renoman
    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.

    I agree. The following passage is a typical example:

    Now, cutting to the chase, if you will… does Scahill really buy the official version of what happened on 9/11? Hmm… Damned if I know. It’s the same general problem as I outlined above, isn’t it?

    What of it is worth saying could be said in four words.

    Condensing his thoughts seems like one of a writer’s fundamental duties. At least a writer presenting ideas he values to people he respects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Mark Green says: • Website

    This was a very interesting and readable essay. It connects the dots. It penetrates the matrix. It synthesizes a multiplicity of counter-revolutionary ideas. Revusky successfully unmasks many of the myths and ideologies that shape today’s suffocating universe of political-correctness.

    Revusky’s innovate acronyms and memes are especially useful. They really get the job done. Small complaint: eliminate the lowbrow and unimaginative term ‘brainfucked’. Even the worn-out, cold-war term ‘brainwashed’ is better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @Anonymous
    then there's Richard Spencer, come along (or created by the usual puppet masters ??) to give Nazis a bad name --

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/19/jewish-leaders-in-richard-spencers-hometown-targeted-in-posting-on-neo-nazi-website/?utm_term=.811901cabd24

    Spencer defines the phenomenon that Revusky describes: fanatics from all directions are vainglorious and seek power.

    Dr. Matt Johnson explains that the better-best-only appropriate response to oppressors is the Jesusian response: to go about doing good, accepting the blows along the way

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhmsleqNdGM

    Spencer's actions are guaranteed to provoke retaliation and smearing of legitimate opposition to elitist oppression, which causes this skeptic to wonder if Spencer is not as much an asset of the CIA as folks like Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were when they got their start. Spencer's behavior definitely follows the modus operandi of the authoritarians who want to be in charge of tikuning the olam.

    FKA MAX

    You are seeking the approval and respect of the Democratic Party and the SPLC…that makes you a fool and irrelevant at a time when it is one minute before midnight demographically for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    You don’t seek approval and respect from creatures that want us dead as soon as possible.

    Richard Spencer is no more, and no less racialized than Black Obama, and the Chinese Fifth Column and the Hindu Fifth Column in America.

    Just reminder:in one week…The Russian Ambassor to Turkey murdered in broad daylight…Russian Ambassador to Latin America murdered in his Moscow Apartment…two days ago, a Russian Military Passagener Jet crashes in the Baltic Sea…192 dead Russian Soldiers and one elite Russian General.

    There is an obvious pattern here….

    Barack Obama has made a genocidal declaration of a race war against European People.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    War for Blair Mountain,

    the comment by ``Anonymous'' is not by me!? I have NEVER commented on the Unz Review anonymously. To be honest, I don't even know why ``Anonymous'' thought to bring up Richard Spencer in this context/discussion, since my comment was pertaining to Christopher Hitchens, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., NOT to Richard Spencer!?!?

    If you are interested to know what I think about Richard Spencer please read my comments in this comment thread; a selection:

    I somewhat disagree. This was not the first time I witnessed Richard Spencer underperform and choke when the stakes were really high. He does not seem to be a ‘closer,’ as Donald Trump likes to say.

    A couple of weeks ago Steve Bannon’s protege and surrogate Milo Yiannopoulos ( read my posts, and follow the links in them, in this thread, for more details: http://www.unz.com/isteve/donald-trump-messiah-of-american-education/#comment-1663331 ) attempted to hijack and co-opt the Alt Right movement, and there was virtually no pushback from Richard Spencer against this attempted intrusion. [...]

    I personally like Mr. Spencer. He is charming and well spoken, etc., but, in my opinion, he does lack some essential and necessary leadership qualities and skills, at the moment.

    I believe he can develop these qualities and skills, but he needs to do some serious soul-searching and self-reflection first, in order to ‘up his game.’

    This is the Big Leagues with the Big Boys, now. He needs to bring his A game!

     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1664291

    The Zionist-Vatican alliance wanted to get rid of the authentic Alt Right after their intrusion was repelled and their co-option failed, and Richard Spencer gave them a huge opening to do that with his ‘Hail Victory’ stunt at NPI…

    It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the ‘Alt Lite’, e.g. Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson, et al. are calling themselves the ‘New Right,’ now.

    Infowars has tons of Vatican connections just like the Murdoch media empire
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1665634


    Mr. Webb,

    where did you read, that Mr. Johnson was accusing Richard Spencer of being an agent?

    He specifically stated in his article:

    Now I do not wish to split hairs about the motives and culpability for this public relations disaster, except to say that I do not believe the charge that Spencer was intentionally sabotaging NPI and the Alt Right.
     
    In regards to Mr. Spencer potentially being a homosexual as well, and his wife being overweight, etc.; this is just unproductive and distracting gossip, in my opinion. [...]

    Much of Mr. Spencer’s time and tweeting on Twitter, before he was banned from the platform, was dedicated to defending Russia, Putin and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, instead of advocating for and defending the historic Protestant American people and nation. What exactly are his real priorities?
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1669380

    I actually credit both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Spencer with initiating one of the most important ideological changes and evolutions within the Alt Right movement, and this is the reason why it is so much more disappointing and saddening to me to see Mr. Spencer sabotage and taint much of the good work he has done in past for the Alt Right movement by not being more careful and measured when it mattered most:

    Radix Journal publishing the two following articles, in my opinion, was the most crucial turning point and moment in the history of the Alt Right movement, and which decoupled it from Catholic dogma/control, which had held it back and weakened it prior:

    The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.

    The Pro-Life Temptation
    Aylmer Fisher · April 8, 2016

    http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2016/4/8/the-pro-life-temptation

    Unintended Consequences
    T. M. Goddard · April 13, 2016

    http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2016/4/13/unintended-consequences

    In October 2015 Alt Right website Counter-Currents had published a piece in a similar vein:
    White Nationalists Need Planned Parenthood, Not the Pope
    Patrick Le Brun

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/
     
    – http://www.unz.com/article/what-can-msmclinton-say-about-alt-right-that-theyve-not-already-said-about-trumpgop/#comment-1561897
     
    - http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1670144
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Rich says:
    @Fin of a Cobra
    "the out-sized role of Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks in creating this whole ball of wax really cannot be denied — to the extent that any analysis that avoids mentioning this will not be worth very much."

    The quote above comes at the half-way point of the essay: the author writes almost 6,000 words before finally getting to gist of the problem. "Finally!", I say to myself. "Finally he will get to what really matters!" But no, it was not to be. The author then goes on to… practically ignore this pivotal issue in the final 6,000 words of the essay!

    The author commits the same mistake he accuses others of: his essay is not worth very much because he completely avoids the central question implied by his own words in the above quote: what explains the fact that the Jews were so successful in manipulating the goyyim to the extent that the goyyim now have a totally new belief system?

    His essay is of little worth because it skirts this fundamental question of our time.

    If he rewrites the essay pinpointing how the Jews went about constructing each of the four pillars of the new religion, then it will be worthwhile reading his analysis.

    But, of course, an investigation of the sort already exists: Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique. A good strategy would be to apply Professor MacDonald's methodology to each of those four pillars mentioned in the essay, and only then will it be possible to unpack the "ball of wax" concocted by the Jews.

    Kevin MacDonald has given us a key and opened a few doors – Boasian anthropology, Freud's psychoanalysis, The Frankfurt School -- to let us get a glimpse of the inner workings of the Jewish Method. We should all go out (and this includes the author, Jonathan Revusky) and use this key and open as many other doors as we can.

    I can’t agree with the supposition that the “Jews” were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF. Religious Jews gain little from PC. There were a lot of ethnic, agnostic Jews who chose this leftist path, but in America at least, they were merely following the thoughts and actions of the leading Anglo-Germans who ran the country when they got here. Fanatical egalitarianism was more a product of New England Protestants, not Eastern European Jews. The War Between the States, the civil rights movement, feminism, were all products of fanatical Protestants seeking dragons to slay. Many ethnic Jews latched onto this as a means of acceptance into the ruling class of the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laugh Track

    ...feminism, [was a product] of fanatical Protestants seeking dragons to slay.
     
    That might have been true of so-called first wave feminism in the U.S. in the 19th century, but I challenge you to name five fanatical Protestant women who were prominent in the radical feminism that exploded in the late 1960's. Not Freidan, Dworkin, Ehrenreich, Alpert, Steinem, Firestone, Rowbotham, Willis, Piercy... Feminism broke out as an intra-left quarrel within the New Left which had heavy Jewish participation. Granted it may have rapidly spread to mainstream Protestantism, but I don't believe that the founding theoreticians were Protestants.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I can’t agree with the supposition that the “Jews” were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF.
     
    The above is a straw man. I never said "solely".

    What I actually said was that Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks played an "out-sized role". And the word "Jewish" in the above refers to ethnicity, not religious faith.


    Religious Jews gain little from PC.
     
    I never said anything about religious Jews. You'll have to try harder at reading comprehension.

    In fact, I specifically referred to Zionist Jews, who, by and large, are not religious.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Wally
    "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."
    - Germar Rudolf

    Sorry old boy, science refutes the government's laughable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    http://www.hangthebankers.com/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/

    Wally

    9/11 Truthers don’t believe in science..because they don’t believe in the scientific process of argumentation…Contact the Engineering and Physics departments of elite Universities and demand a hearing in front of faculty and Grad students…give a detailed scientific and physics presentation on the collapse of the TT and Building 7…and explain why the faculty and grad students in these physics and engineering departments at these elite universities have a substandard grasp of first semester freshman physics….

    In the meantime….FUCK OFF!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Why did .Gov ship out all the evidence to China, ASAP?
    , @Mr. Anon
    Forget it, man! The Truthers have Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, and Rosie O'Donnell on their side, all of them known for being virtually infallible brainiacs. They're invincible!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam J.
    My “All work and no play moment” was 9-11 and specifically building #7. You don't need to be an Architect or Engineer to determine with 100% reliability that on 9-11 the buildings were demoed.

    I'm going to strip out all the bullshit and prove that building #7 was demoed in some manner. All the 9-11 talk by the lying "Spoofers" is just a distraction. It it 100% that building #7 was demoed and could not have been brought down by fire because of the basic physics of the fall. You don't need to rely on anyone to know the truth. Look with your own eyes. Basic high school physics. Undisputable. Building #7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped beside it in free air for roughly 108 feet. This means the building had no resistance to falling except air. Impossible without explosives.

    All materials fall the same speed in a gravity field disregarding air friction which I don't thing we need to worry about for a building falling. So the speed of our imaginary rock falling next to the building is just gravity related. The speed of the buildings falling, the exact same as the rock, is just gravity also. This means that there was NOTHING to slow the fall of the building. The density of the material under the imaginary rock falling was air. The building fell the same therefore the density of the material under the building was also air. We know this is not true. Building #7 was not hovering in the air. The lower portions of the building were demoed out from under it.

    It's makes NO difference how big the fires were. The buildings density never reached the same value as air! The fires did not boil away the building structure where it was light as air! All the talk about damage, fires, this, that, all bullshit because the building fell with all four corners almost level the same speed as a rock in AIR. If a building falls as fast as a rock and the rock is falling through JUST AIR then the building is falling through JUST AIR also. Simple equivalence. 1=1, 2=2, big rock falling in air=small rock falling in air=building falling in air. One problem is people sometimes believe that a really heavy thing will fall faster than a lighter thing. Not true. Look at this video of the Apollo astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer on the Moon. They land at the same time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

    Once you realize 9-11 is a big lie you soon realize there's a LOT of lies and what you thought about your country is no longer true.

    Didn’t Unz make a separate thread for all of this 9-11 talk?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    9/11 and its aftermath has affected almost every aspect of life in America and most of the rest of the planet too so don't be too surprised if the more alert amongst you repeatedly bring it up in differing contexts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. I got about half way through this thinking there must be a pony in here somewhere. Then I dozed off. This terrible writing may express something profound. I will never know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I got about half way through this thinking there must be a pony in here somewhere. Then I dozed off. This terrible writing may express something profound. I will never know.
     
    Not to be too subtle here, but I've noticed that the rave reviews seem to be coming from commenters whose writing "may express something profound". Funny how that works. Profundity abounds.

    "Great Scott, Holmes!! Green hairs!!"
    -- Firesign Theatre, circa 1976, The Giant Rat of Sumatra
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Half way through the article I almost fell asleep, so I went to bed.
    But I left your article open on my also sleeping computer, and next morning I read it to the end.
    I haven read such a brilliant and insightfull article in a long time!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Linh Dinh says: • Website

    I thank Ron Unz for introducing me to Jonathan Revusky, whose articles I always look forward to. Ron’s campaign against the real purveyors of fake news should be loudly applauded. While not every article is perfect, or each writer to my taste, this website has become invaluable to me as a reader. Unz Review makes nearly all the other political webzines superfluous.

    Unz writers suffer some the nastiest abuses anywhere on the web, however, and I assume Ron allows this to show how degraded and vicious our culture has become. Fred Reed’s and John Derbyshire’s wives are mocked, Paul Craig Roberts and the Saker are called idiots, and the foreign-born are told to go back where they come from. It is striking, and very sad, this pseudonymously spewed venom.

    I thank Jonathan Revusky for another thought-provoking article. I find very useful his listing of The Democracy Myth, Social Justice Narrative, Conspiracy Theory and Good War as the four pillars of this Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism. You’ve set the table nicely for further discussion, so bravo!

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    With respect Linh, anti-religious fanaticism is ideological fanaticism. It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.
    , @David
    I agree that Unz.com is central to my reading, even including books. And I agree that people ridiculing others' wives is rude. But the thrust of your comment, that you're surprised Ron allows comments you find objectionable makes you sound like an Asian bent on harmony over vigorous debate. Oh, you'll say you just want civility, but your standards are not likely Anglo Saxon, a culture degraded mostly by too rapid dilution in these later times.

    Allow me to say that Paul Craig Roberts is a blow hard who happens to be right a lot. No one is ruder without obscenities than he is.

    When Turkey shot down a Russian jet, PCR said about western reportage, "the presstitutes were too lazy to do the math." A day or two later he published a long email from a pilot showing PCR to be incompetent to do the math.

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.

    PCR's repeatedly described the generality of Americans as stupid. A view you may endorse.

    He recently quoted a comment saying "we moved the world" when the commenter had written "you moved the world." Why the slight change? Because PCR was about to ask for money. It's just a little lie, but it was intentional and shows the kind of person he is.

    If Unz.com has become a forum of excellence, the commenters deserve some of the credit. I don't read you but I'd be surprised if some harsh comment hasn't influenced your style.

    According to Kenneth Clark, a 16th century Florentine painter attributed his city's excellence in the arts to "The spirit of criticism: the air of Florence making minds naturally free, and not content with mediocrity."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Mr. Anon says:
    @Wally
    "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."
    - Germar Rudolf

    Sorry old boy, science refutes the government's laughable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    http://www.hangthebankers.com/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/

    “Sorry old boy, science refutes the government’s laughable conspiracy theory about 9/11.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/”

    Utter nonsense. 2500 architects and engineers (if indeed, they all really are s0) is not “science”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. somebody who thinks that marriage is between a man and a woman!

    cause Torquemada, you know

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @Rich
    I can't agree with the supposition that the "Jews" were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF. Religious Jews gain little from PC. There were a lot of ethnic, agnostic Jews who chose this leftist path, but in America at least, they were merely following the thoughts and actions of the leading Anglo-Germans who ran the country when they got here. Fanatical egalitarianism was more a product of New England Protestants, not Eastern European Jews. The War Between the States, the civil rights movement, feminism, were all products of fanatical Protestants seeking dragons to slay. Many ethnic Jews latched onto this as a means of acceptance into the ruling class of the US.

    …feminism, [was a product] of fanatical Protestants seeking dragons to slay.

    That might have been true of so-called first wave feminism in the U.S. in the 19th century, but I challenge you to name five fanatical Protestant women who were prominent in the radical feminism that exploded in the late 1960′s. Not Freidan, Dworkin, Ehrenreich, Alpert, Steinem, Firestone, Rowbotham, Willis, Piercy… Feminism broke out as an intra-left quarrel within the New Left which had heavy Jewish participation. Granted it may have rapidly spread to mainstream Protestantism, but I don’t believe that the founding theoreticians were Protestants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. FKA Max says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain
    FKA MAX

    You are seeking the approval and respect of the Democratic Party and the SPLC...that makes you a fool and irrelevant at a time when it is one minute before midnight demographically for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    You don't seek approval and respect from creatures that want us dead as soon as possible.


    Richard Spencer is no more, and no less racialized than Black Obama, and the Chinese Fifth Column and the Hindu Fifth Column in America.


    Just reminder:in one week...The Russian Ambassor to Turkey murdered in broad daylight...Russian Ambassador to Latin America murdered in his Moscow Apartment...two days ago, a Russian Military Passagener Jet crashes in the Baltic Sea...192 dead Russian Soldiers and one elite Russian General.

    There is an obvious pattern here....


    Barack Obama has made a genocidal declaration of a race war against European People.

    War for Blair Mountain,

    the comment by “Anonymous” is not by me!? I have NEVER commented on the Unz Review anonymously. To be honest, I don’t even know why “Anonymous” thought to bring up Richard Spencer in this context/discussion, since my comment was pertaining to Christopher Hitchens, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., NOT to Richard Spencer!?!?

    If you are interested to know what I think about Richard Spencer please read my comments in this comment thread; a selection:

    [MORE]

    I somewhat disagree. This was not the first time I witnessed Richard Spencer underperform and choke when the stakes were really high. He does not seem to be a ‘closer,’ as Donald Trump likes to say.

    A couple of weeks ago Steve Bannon’s protege and surrogate Milo Yiannopoulos ( read my posts, and follow the links in them, in this thread, for more details: http://www.unz.com/isteve/donald-trump-messiah-of-american-education/#comment-1663331 ) attempted to hijack and co-opt the Alt Right movement, and there was virtually no pushback from Richard Spencer against this attempted intrusion. [...]

    I personally like Mr. Spencer. He is charming and well spoken, etc., but, in my opinion, he does lack some essential and necessary leadership qualities and skills, at the moment.

    I believe he can develop these qualities and skills, but he needs to do some serious soul-searching and self-reflection first, in order to ‘up his game.’

    This is the Big Leagues with the Big Boys, now. He needs to bring his A game!

    http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1664291

    The Zionist-Vatican alliance wanted to get rid of the authentic Alt Right after their intrusion was repelled and their co-option failed, and Richard Spencer gave them a huge opening to do that with his ‘Hail Victory’ stunt at NPI…

    It is no coincidence, in my opinion, that the ‘Alt Lite’, e.g. Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson, et al. are calling themselves the ‘New Right,’ now.

    Infowars has tons of Vatican connections just like the Murdoch media empire

    http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1665634

    Mr. Webb,

    where did you read, that Mr. Johnson was accusing Richard Spencer of being an agent?

    He specifically stated in his article:

    Now I do not wish to split hairs about the motives and culpability for this public relations disaster, except to say that I do not believe the charge that Spencer was intentionally sabotaging NPI and the Alt Right.

    In regards to Mr. Spencer potentially being a homosexual as well, and his wife being overweight, etc.; this is just unproductive and distracting gossip, in my opinion. [...]

    Much of Mr. Spencer’s time and tweeting on Twitter, before he was banned from the platform, was dedicated to defending Russia, Putin and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, instead of advocating for and defending the historic Protestant American people and nation. What exactly are his real priorities?

    http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1669380

    I actually credit both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Spencer with initiating one of the most important ideological changes and evolutions within the Alt Right movement, and this is the reason why it is so much more disappointing and saddening to me to see Mr. Spencer sabotage and taint much of the good work he has done in past for the Alt Right movement by not being more careful and measured when it mattered most:

    Radix Journal publishing the two following articles, in my opinion, was the most crucial turning point and moment in the history of the Alt Right movement, and which decoupled it from Catholic dogma/control, which had held it back and weakened it prior:

    The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.

    The Pro-Life Temptation
    Aylmer Fisher · April 8, 2016

    http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2016/4/8/the-pro-life-temptation

    Unintended Consequences
    T. M. Goddard · April 13, 2016

    http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2016/4/13/unintended-consequences

    In October 2015 Alt Right website Counter-Currents had published a piece in a similar vein:
    White Nationalists Need Planned Parenthood, Not the Pope
    Patrick Le Brun

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/10/white-nationalists-need-planned-parenthood-not-the-pope/

    http://www.unz.com/article/what-can-msmclinton-say-about-alt-right-that-theyve-not-already-said-about-trumpgop/#comment-1561897

    http://www.unz.com/article/npis-spencer-vs-politcos-hirsh-etc/#comment-1670144

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. To speak to this essay itself, while the author makes several good points, I think his overall message is undercut by a meandering and prolix style. I don’t think there is anything crucial in it that couldn’t have been covered in 3000 words instead of 12,000. Too many acronyms to keep track of, too much self-referentiality, too many asides, just way too much verbiage.

    Hey, I could see this as a first draft where you just let the writing flow, but you really should consider then going back and ruthlessly paring it down and cutting out all the self-indulgence. If your goal is to communicate your ideas, “less is more”. Go study Orwell’s essays. 1500 words can be sufficient for a good think piece, especially in a Web context where one is reading from a monitor (much less a cell phone screen).

    To put this another way, I found much to think about in this essay, but the writer is his own worst enemy if he actually wants people to read and finish his pieces. I slogged my way through this, but it was not easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @landlubber
    In summary, Orwell's prose, 1500 words; ordinary prose, 3000 words; Revulsion prose, 12000 words. However, if one's goal is to boggle the reader's mind with hundreds of non-sequiturs, 3000 words is pretty limiting!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @annamaria
    "But once something gets turned into a religious dogma, doesn’t freedom of religion apply?"

    This is a clearly-articulated idea targeting both opportunists and faux revolutionaries that want to look radical while staying comfortably safe.
    This clip (linked above) should help to better understanding of the idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WD3YAyh274
    Moreover, the indifference of the EU/US "progressives" to the massive crimes committed by NATO/US/Israel/SA in the Middle East (in the name of democracy, of course) is the symptom of the "progressives" groupthink that the author is so good at describing. The article is indeed a whiff of fresh air.

    “But once something gets turned into a religious dogma, doesn’t freedom of religion apply?”

    Well, at least in the United States atheists have more or less been able to establish in law that they have a freedom from religion, and arrogated to themselves (together with their tribal fellow travelers and confreres) special standing to divorce the faintest trace of religion from culture. They don’t want to admit that theirs is a religion carrying with it all sorts of positive beliefs, dogma and symbols, because in such a case they’d be subject to the same regime of laws that they’ve used to hem in their enemies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. CK says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two.
     
    You should have stopped when you saw the name Jonathan Revusky in the byline. This moron is a 9/11 Truther-Douchebag, a hopelessly conceited bad-faith arguer, and a cowardly word-mincer hiding behind his keyboard and pretending to be some sort of modern day Valiant-for-Truth. Like Paul Craig Roberts, he is a perpetually deluded simpleton who thinks he's a genius, a halfwit who thinks he's a one-and-a-half wit. Just avoid him altogether.

    No one required either of you brilliant people to click on the article.
    Colleen was apparently not wise enough to recognize the author’s byline according to the I.D.
    I.D. does the invective thing almost as well as it was described in the article. “Truther-Douchebag”, “cowardly word-mincer”, “perpetually deluded simpleton”, “halfwit”, not a lot of intellect in that spew. Have to agree however if something offends you; don’t do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    No one required either of you brilliant people to click on the article.
     
    I didn't---I only clicked on the comments. I don't waste my time reading Revusky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @CK
    No one required either of you brilliant people to click on the article.
    Colleen was apparently not wise enough to recognize the author's byline according to the I.D.
    I.D. does the invective thing almost as well as it was described in the article. "Truther-Douchebag", "cowardly word-mincer", "perpetually deluded simpleton", "halfwit", not a lot of intellect in that spew. Have to agree however if something offends you; don't do it.

    No one required either of you brilliant people to click on the article.

    I didn’t—I only clicked on the comments. I don’t waste my time reading Revusky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Linh Dinh
    I thank Ron Unz for introducing me to Jonathan Revusky, whose articles I always look forward to. Ron's campaign against the real purveyors of fake news should be loudly applauded. While not every article is perfect, or each writer to my taste, this website has become invaluable to me as a reader. Unz Review makes nearly all the other political webzines superfluous.

    Unz writers suffer some the nastiest abuses anywhere on the web, however, and I assume Ron allows this to show how degraded and vicious our culture has become. Fred Reed's and John Derbyshire's wives are mocked, Paul Craig Roberts and the Saker are called idiots, and the foreign-born are told to go back where they come from. It is striking, and very sad, this pseudonymously spewed venom.

    I thank Jonathan Revusky for another thought-provoking article. I find very useful his listing of The Democracy Myth, Social Justice Narrative, Conspiracy Theory and Good War as the four pillars of this Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism. You've set the table nicely for further discussion, so bravo!

    With respect Linh, anti-religious fanaticism is ideological fanaticism. It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Why not? Don't forget, there are anti-Zionist Zionists.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.
     
    Hmm.... that's interesting. Just a little verbal acuity test, if you don't mind...

    Suppose I (or anybody) were to say to you: "The politician talked at length but he didn't say a damned thing."

    Would you think that this is an inherently meaningless, contradictory sentence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. RobinG says:
    @WorkingClass
    With respect Linh, anti-religious fanaticism is ideological fanaticism. It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.

    Why not? Don’t forget, there are anti-Zionist Zionists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @WorkingClass
    With respect Linh, anti-religious fanaticism is ideological fanaticism. It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.

    It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.

    Hmm…. that’s interesting. Just a little verbal acuity test, if you don’t mind…

    Suppose I (or anybody) were to say to you: “The politician talked at length but he didn’t say a damned thing.”

    Would you think that this is an inherently meaningless, contradictory sentence?

    Read More
  75. @Rich
    I can't agree with the supposition that the "Jews" were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF. Religious Jews gain little from PC. There were a lot of ethnic, agnostic Jews who chose this leftist path, but in America at least, they were merely following the thoughts and actions of the leading Anglo-Germans who ran the country when they got here. Fanatical egalitarianism was more a product of New England Protestants, not Eastern European Jews. The War Between the States, the civil rights movement, feminism, were all products of fanatical Protestants seeking dragons to slay. Many ethnic Jews latched onto this as a means of acceptance into the ruling class of the US.

    I can’t agree with the supposition that the “Jews” were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF.

    The above is a straw man. I never said “solely”.

    What I actually said was that Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks played an “out-sized role”. And the word “Jewish” in the above refers to ethnicity, not religious faith.

    Religious Jews gain little from PC.

    I never said anything about religious Jews. You’ll have to try harder at reading comprehension.

    In fact, I specifically referred to Zionist Jews, who, by and large, are not religious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    With all due respect Mr Revusky, I was responding to something "Fin of a Cobra", wrote,not what you wrote. And even though you insulted my reading comprehension I still agree with most of what you wrote.

    Also, (with a wink) I understand why you responded so vehemently after misunderstanding what I wrote. You've got a career to worry about and, I'm sure, mouths to feed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. MarkinPNW says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Since David Ray Griffin was mentioned...


    David Ray Griffin....the Pope of The 9/11 Truther Movement...is another sociopath who is on-board with the mass importation of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army. Professor Griffin is one main reasons why I violently hate 9/11 Truthers with every fiber of my being!!!

    So apparently this “David Ray Griffin” fellow is an example of Revusky’s “On being partially pregnant”, still no reason to sterotype a whole “movement” on the basis of one of the proponents obvious flaws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    So apparently this “David Ray Griffin” fellow is an example of
     
    Actually, because I had interacted a little bit with "War for Great Blair Mountain" before, I was wondering about his claim here. I did a quick google search, trying a few different strings such as "David Ray Griffin refugee crisis Europe" and variants on that and I cannot find anything where DRG says anything about the issue one way or the other. (Of course, even if DRG had expressed whatever opinion about refugees/immigration, it has nothing to do with any topic under discussion here.)

    The thing is that "Great Bullshit Mountain" is obsessed with the idea that 9/11 has something to do with immigration policy. He says it stems from the immigration reform act of 1965. I pointed out to Bullshit Mountain that the 9/11 official story is untrue, but even if it were true, that it has nothing to do with immigration policy. People wouldn't need a green card, say, to fly a plane into a building. They could just come in on a tourist visa and do it! I told Bullshit Mountain that and I think, on some other occasions, corrected him about some other BS of his, and his modus operandi is always to answer by simply repeating the same bullshit. He's kind of autistic or something.

    But anyway, Great Bullshit Mountain is one of the most clearly demented people here. And that's saying something! Whatever he says about anything can't really be trusted.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. MarkinPNW says:
    @Miro23
    Interesting clip of Donald Trump's reaction to the collapse of the WTC Towers on 9/11.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w

    Trump was the first 9-11 Truther. Watch this video of a news report on that day where Trump says that an airplane couldn’t have knocked down the WTCs, and states bombs must have been used too. I find it interesting that this was never used to attack Trump, perhaps because it supports 9-11 truthers.
     
    This is probably right. No doubt the 9/11 planners didn't want it to become an open issue in the election.

    A separate question is why Trump also decided not to use it? Maybe he needed (some) Jewish support, or (more likely) he incorporated it in some kind of specific deal with the Zionist branch. On the one hand counter cultural Jewish activists mostly did everything in their power to stop him getting elected, and on the other he knows exactly how the Towers came down but officially agrees with the Big Lie.

    Conclusion - that he's allied with the Zionist Neo-cons but intends to fight corporations/Wall St. on the economic front (read Breitbart comments for a clue - they're all for Israel and MENA wars but want to stop immigration and outsourcing).

    Yea, Trump probably wants to get as much positive stuff accomplished as he can before he gets Dealy Plaza’d or Watergated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anonymous

    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.
     
    That the young are losing any ability to think (despite their IQs, or apparent IQs, rising due to the Flynn effect) is something we know.

    We also know that a few are proud about this condition and see it as an accomplishment.

    Very favorable conditions for potential, incoming dictatorship.
    Those who "have no patience" to use their mind and do the effort to understand and learn have been the most loved by every authoritarian power, no matter the time in history and place. Wonder why?

    Excuse me but I see nothing to celebrate.

    Look at the schools, teachers and learners, of a nation, and you'll see the future of that nation.

    Neil Postman covers this very well in Amusing Ourselves to Death.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Intelligent Dasein

    LOl I was smart enough to stop after a page or two.
     
    You should have stopped when you saw the name Jonathan Revusky in the byline. This moron is a 9/11 Truther-Douchebag, a hopelessly conceited bad-faith arguer, and a cowardly word-mincer hiding behind his keyboard and pretending to be some sort of modern day Valiant-for-Truth. Like Paul Craig Roberts, he is a perpetually deluded simpleton who thinks he's a genius, a halfwit who thinks he's a one-and-a-half wit. Just avoid him altogether.

    Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum.

    You, on the other hand, have managed a few ill considered and mostly worthless ad homonym attacks in your comments, but thanks for sharing anyway (kindly forgive my sarcasm).

    p.s. Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum."

    Lengthy? Most definitely. Does he get paid by the word?

    Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @War for Blair Mountain
    Since David Ray Griffin was mentioned...


    David Ray Griffin....the Pope of The 9/11 Truther Movement...is another sociopath who is on-board with the mass importation of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army. Professor Griffin is one main reasons why I violently hate 9/11 Truthers with every fiber of my being!!!

    Professor Griffin is one main reasons why I violently hate 9/11 Truthers with every fiber of my being!!!

    Nope, that would be your stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. The article is puerile and diarrhetic.

    Scahill has never been PC, by the way, unlike Goodman.

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work as a foreign correspondent, from Serbia through Iraq to Afghanistan and the rest, and his unveiling of Blackwater mercenaries was single-handed and Herculean.

    He has also documented Obama’s extrajudicial executions. Here is a link to an interview with him on “How Obama made assassination foreign policy”:

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/216210-2/216210/

    This vacuous article cannot hold a candle to anything Scahill has said or written, even on a off day.

    By the way Señor Trump just appointed Erik Prince’s cousin as a candidate to his cabinet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    corr: Erik Prince's sister.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work
     
    Well, fine. I never said otherwise.

    The problem here is that you don't really understand the point I was making. It's not really about attacking Scahill specifically. All of these guys behave roughly the same way in that spot. Chris Hedges certainly... Matt Taibbi... Alexander Cockburn was awful... that's just off the top of my head... certainly, anybody who is mainstream enough to be on television is never going to touch certain things. I'm not saying that none of these people do good work at all. The point is that there are things they just won't touch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Anonymous

    Once you realize 9-11 is a big lie you soon realize there’s a LOT of lies and what you thought about your country is no longer true.
     
    Mother of God, will you twits ever shut the hell up? Terrorism or conspiracy, it just makes no fucking difference at all.

    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous “handle”, your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey NtD,

    Or in another context, "Well Watson, the man is dead - whether it was murder or self defense - who cares? Let's go smoke our pipes, shall we?"

    Peace.
    , @Anonymous

    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous “handle”, your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!
     
    Perhaps 9/11 is of great significance to you, but its historical significance is established, and thereby exhausted. Its political utility has expired. I would explain in greater detail, but you would not understand -- it's an abstract thing that historians discuss on occasion. It is a situation similar to that of the wackadoodles who howl at the moon over Lincoln's purported perfidy, tyranny, Constitution-destroying, nigger-loving, etc. etc. Too late, even if accurate. Work on something else more constructive. You will never get back the pre-9/11 world. Done and done. All over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Anonymous
    Didn't Unz make a separate thread for all of this 9-11 talk?

    9/11 and its aftermath has affected almost every aspect of life in America and most of the rest of the planet too so don’t be too surprised if the more alert amongst you repeatedly bring it up in differing contexts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Rich says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I can’t agree with the supposition that the “Jews” were solely responsible for the creation of what the author calls ARRF.
     
    The above is a straw man. I never said "solely".

    What I actually said was that Jewish intellectuals and Jewish ethnic networks played an "out-sized role". And the word "Jewish" in the above refers to ethnicity, not religious faith.


    Religious Jews gain little from PC.
     
    I never said anything about religious Jews. You'll have to try harder at reading comprehension.

    In fact, I specifically referred to Zionist Jews, who, by and large, are not religious.

    With all due respect Mr Revusky, I was responding to something “Fin of a Cobra”, wrote,not what you wrote. And even though you insulted my reading comprehension I still agree with most of what you wrote.

    Also, (with a wink) I understand why you responded so vehemently after misunderstanding what I wrote. You’ve got a career to worry about and, I’m sure, mouths to feed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    With all due respect Mr Revusky, I was responding to something “Fin of a Cobra”
     
    Yes, that is true, and I think I did sort of miss that aspect.

    "Fin of a Cobra" was reproaching me for leaving certain things unsaid. Though, what I did write goes further than just about anybody is willing to do. Most people won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

    You’ve got a career to worry about and, I’m sure, mouths to feed.
     
    Well, no, my concern is just accuracy really. In terms of making certain people unhappy, my saying that the Jews had an "out-sized" role as opposed to an exclusive role, it probably makes little difference. The thing is that, saying it was exclusively Jews is not accurate, I don't think. However, "out-sized role", I don't really see how an honest, informed person could dispute that!

    And, as for them being religious, that's almost entirely a red herring. The original Zionists like Herzl were not religious men. Also, Bolshevik Jews like Trotsky (and the less prominent ones, of course) were not religious at all. Nor were the Frankfurt School cultural marxist intellectuals.

    Actually, traditional religious Jews have as much reason to hate ARRF as traditional religious Christians or Muslims do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @E. A. Costa
    The article is puerile and diarrhetic.

    Scahill has never been PC, by the way, unlike Goodman.

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work as a foreign correspondent, from Serbia through Iraq to Afghanistan and the rest, and his unveiling of Blackwater mercenaries was single-handed and Herculean.

    He has also documented Obama's extrajudicial executions. Here is a link to an interview with him on "How Obama made assassination foreign policy":

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/216210-2/216210/

    This vacuous article cannot hold a candle to anything Scahill has said or written, even on a off day.

    By the way Señor Trump just appointed Erik Prince's cousin as a candidate to his cabinet.

    corr: Erik Prince’s sister.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @MarkinPNW
    So apparently this "David Ray Griffin" fellow is an example of Revusky's "On being partially pregnant", still no reason to sterotype a whole "movement" on the basis of one of the proponents obvious flaws.

    So apparently this “David Ray Griffin” fellow is an example of

    Actually, because I had interacted a little bit with “War for Great Blair Mountain” before, I was wondering about his claim here. I did a quick google search, trying a few different strings such as “David Ray Griffin refugee crisis Europe” and variants on that and I cannot find anything where DRG says anything about the issue one way or the other. (Of course, even if DRG had expressed whatever opinion about refugees/immigration, it has nothing to do with any topic under discussion here.)

    The thing is that “Great Bullshit Mountain” is obsessed with the idea that 9/11 has something to do with immigration policy. He says it stems from the immigration reform act of 1965. I pointed out to Bullshit Mountain that the 9/11 official story is untrue, but even if it were true, that it has nothing to do with immigration policy. People wouldn’t need a green card, say, to fly a plane into a building. They could just come in on a tourist visa and do it! I told Bullshit Mountain that and I think, on some other occasions, corrected him about some other BS of his, and his modus operandi is always to answer by simply repeating the same bullshit. He’s kind of autistic or something.

    But anyway, Great Bullshit Mountain is one of the most clearly demented people here. And that’s saying something! Whatever he says about anything can’t really be trusted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Rich
    With all due respect Mr Revusky, I was responding to something "Fin of a Cobra", wrote,not what you wrote. And even though you insulted my reading comprehension I still agree with most of what you wrote.

    Also, (with a wink) I understand why you responded so vehemently after misunderstanding what I wrote. You've got a career to worry about and, I'm sure, mouths to feed.

    With all due respect Mr Revusky, I was responding to something “Fin of a Cobra”

    Yes, that is true, and I think I did sort of miss that aspect.

    “Fin of a Cobra” was reproaching me for leaving certain things unsaid. Though, what I did write goes further than just about anybody is willing to do. Most people won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

    You’ve got a career to worry about and, I’m sure, mouths to feed.

    Well, no, my concern is just accuracy really. In terms of making certain people unhappy, my saying that the Jews had an “out-sized” role as opposed to an exclusive role, it probably makes little difference. The thing is that, saying it was exclusively Jews is not accurate, I don’t think. However, “out-sized role”, I don’t really see how an honest, informed person could dispute that!

    And, as for them being religious, that’s almost entirely a red herring. The original Zionists like Herzl were not religious men. Also, Bolshevik Jews like Trotsky (and the less prominent ones, of course) were not religious at all. Nor were the Frankfurt School cultural marxist intellectuals.

    Actually, traditional religious Jews have as much reason to hate ARRF as traditional religious Christians or Muslims do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @E. A. Costa
    The article is puerile and diarrhetic.

    Scahill has never been PC, by the way, unlike Goodman.

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work as a foreign correspondent, from Serbia through Iraq to Afghanistan and the rest, and his unveiling of Blackwater mercenaries was single-handed and Herculean.

    He has also documented Obama's extrajudicial executions. Here is a link to an interview with him on "How Obama made assassination foreign policy":

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/216210-2/216210/

    This vacuous article cannot hold a candle to anything Scahill has said or written, even on a off day.

    By the way Señor Trump just appointed Erik Prince's cousin as a candidate to his cabinet.

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work

    Well, fine. I never said otherwise.

    The problem here is that you don’t really understand the point I was making. It’s not really about attacking Scahill specifically. All of these guys behave roughly the same way in that spot. Chris Hedges certainly… Matt Taibbi… Alexander Cockburn was awful… that’s just off the top of my head… certainly, anybody who is mainstream enough to be on television is never going to touch certain things. I’m not saying that none of these people do good work at all. The point is that there are things they just won’t touch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. A. Costa
    What you do not seem to understand is that "PC", is also corrosive among the Republicans, the Neo-Cons, the "White Nationalists" and the rest, as well as among the milquetoasts who try to split the difference.

    In fact, trying to force people to split the difference is part of the game.

    "Well, sure, you can oppose the war in Iraq but, you know, you support the troops, right?"

    In fact it is only recently that the long history of the term became adopted by the faux-"Left" in the US.

    There is even a version in Banking and Finance--for one example, the altogether unidirectional "Moral Hazard", just for starters, which is as comic as it is absurd.

    Even more important, each of these different kits keeps changing.

    A serious analysis would begin with the roots of it, not its political applications by or to one group.

    The acronyms are just silly, which may have been intended.
    , @Bruce Marshall
    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers....whose afraid of saying the truth?!

    So here is today's litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.

    I have, having informed Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that his Co-Sponsorship of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Stop Arming Terrorists Act, is great, but that by its own definition such an act I identifying not only a felony, but more importantly an act of Treason, and that by not addressing this felony and treason, he is being warned that he is party to such Treason as Misprision of Treason.

    This challenge needs to be addressed, by competent news outlets, and more importantly citizens willing to make the challenge of their elected servants whose sole duty above all other considerations is to uphold the Constitution. Remind them that it may be their own family that may be killed in a plane taken down by a Man-Pa that Congress and Obama gave to terrorists.

    We have Professor Francis Boyle, who wrote the Articles of Impeachment against GHW Bush by Rep. Henry Gonzales willing to write up Impeachment Papers on Obama right now, while Congress is technically still in Session, and World War III still smoldering.

    So act.

    Bruce Marshall
    Rochester, Vermont

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Sam Shama says:

    Egad! What on earth is this thing?!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. fnn says:
    @jamie b.
    I'm an atheist and not at all PC. And I'm hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.

    Revilo Oliver was an outspoken atheist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Talha says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous "handle", your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!

    Hey NtD,

    Or in another context, “Well Watson, the man is dead – whether it was murder or self defense – who cares? Let’s go smoke our pipes, shall we?”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Very well put, Talha. I really think it is a shame that people are allowed to comment more than two or three times using Anonymous, anon or some variation. People who flaunt their ignorance in the manner that Anonymous has should at least be identifiable. It would be my one request for Ron Unz to change about this terrific forum.

    Cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Jonathan Revusky

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work
     
    Well, fine. I never said otherwise.

    The problem here is that you don't really understand the point I was making. It's not really about attacking Scahill specifically. All of these guys behave roughly the same way in that spot. Chris Hedges certainly... Matt Taibbi... Alexander Cockburn was awful... that's just off the top of my head... certainly, anybody who is mainstream enough to be on television is never going to touch certain things. I'm not saying that none of these people do good work at all. The point is that there are things they just won't touch.

    What you do not seem to understand is that “PC”, is also corrosive among the Republicans, the Neo-Cons, the “White Nationalists” and the rest, as well as among the milquetoasts who try to split the difference.

    In fact, trying to force people to split the difference is part of the game.

    “Well, sure, you can oppose the war in Iraq but, you know, you support the troops, right?”

    In fact it is only recently that the long history of the term became adopted by the faux-”Left” in the US.

    There is even a version in Banking and Finance–for one example, the altogether unidirectional “Moral Hazard”, just for starters, which is as comic as it is absurd.

    Even more important, each of these different kits keeps changing.

    A serious analysis would begin with the roots of it, not its political applications by or to one group.

    The acronyms are just silly, which may have been intended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    [There is even a version in Banking and Finance–for one example, the altogether unidirectional “Moral Hazard”, just for starters, which is as comic as it is absurd.]

    Do you mean that recaps were absurd? Perhaps I am misreading.

    Re-capitalisation of systematically important financial institutions by the CB, which will not brook any half-witted arguments from the loony libertarians is a matter very well understood by now, proper regulations being key.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @War for Blair Mountain
    Chridtopher Hitchens was fat bloated narcissistic homosexual War Criminal Pansy who cheered on mass murder in Iraq in the the name of New Athiest Religious Fanactism.


    The young English W0men of Dawkin's New Athiest England are being raped by the Mohammadan Army.



    Monty Python's Eric Idle is an enthusiast for the mass murder of millions of Conservative Orthodox Christian Russians because they won't give homosexual-pedophiles like the late Graham Chapman the right to exchange wedding bowels in a Russian Conservative Orthodox Christian Church.


    The new Athiest deserve to be violently eleminated from the Planet Earth....along with the New Atheist Nuns....Pussy Riot....

    exchange wedding bowels…lulz!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. jamie b. says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Not at all, but I can see why PC can become its own religion. Atheism is often a part of it, if not the converse, e.g. all SJWs are some form of atheism, but not all atheists are SJws. I think the first part of the statement is overreaching some, but its a decent way to understand the author's arguments.

    “…all SJWs are some form of atheism…”

    Mainstream religions in America/Europe are all rather P.C.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). Associate Justice James Wilson, of the U.S. Supreme Court comments:

    “The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention… Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.”

    Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 (1793)

    Note 29 here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. jamie b. says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m an atheist and not at all PC. And I’m hardly alone. The two are not one and the same.
     
    I read a fragment of something from Bertrand Russell the other day, in which he mentioned that he was agnostic in accordance with philosophical definitions (philosophy as science, not as subjective musings), but that he felt forced to use the term "atheist" in order for conventional public perception to make effective recognition.

    "Atheism" is essentially a religious formation, in that it recognizes the human-created component of which real "existence" it denies. Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of "I don't know."

    “…recognizes the human-created component of which real ‘existence’ it denies.”

    This argument seems circular to me.

    “Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of ‘I don’t know.’”

    There are many conceptions of God that I am agnostic about, and many that you and I both would deny. Or would you claim that Zeus just might possibly exist?

    “…agnostic in accordance with philosophical definitions…”

    Yes, strictly speaking, Zeus can’t be excluded as a logical possibility. Does that make me “religious” when I deny his possibility? Again, there are many conceptions of God that I’m agnostic about, and others about which I am highly doubtful. In the end, “atheist” is the most honest label I can give myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous


    “Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of ‘I don’t know.’”
     
    There are many conceptions of God that I am agnostic about, and many that you and I both would deny. Or would you claim that Zeus just might possibly exist?
     
    So sorry. My mistake. Have a nice day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @War for Blair Mountain
    Wally

    9/11 Truthers don't believe in science..because they don't believe in the scientific process of argumentation...Contact the Engineering and Physics departments of elite Universities and demand a hearing in front of faculty and Grad students...give a detailed scientific and physics presentation on the collapse of the TT and Building 7...and explain why the faculty and grad students in these physics and engineering departments at these elite universities have a substandard grasp of first semester freshman physics....


    In the meantime....FUCK OFF!!!

    Why did .Gov ship out all the evidence to China, ASAP?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Why did .Gov ship out all the evidence to China, ASAP?"

    It's only evidence if one subscribes to your "theory". Otherwise, it's just scrap metal that's in the way. Afterall, after a mass shooting in a mall, why don't the police preserve the blood stains all over the floors and walls indefinitely, just in case some "researcher" wants to investigate them?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jamie b.
    "...recognizes the human-created component of which real 'existence' it denies."

    This argument seems circular to me.

    "Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of 'I don’t know.'"

    There are many conceptions of God that I am agnostic about, and many that you and I both would deny. Or would you claim that Zeus just might possibly exist?

    "...agnostic in accordance with philosophical definitions..."

    Yes, strictly speaking, Zeus can't be excluded as a logical possibility. Does that make me "religious" when I deny his possibility? Again, there are many conceptions of God that I'm agnostic about, and others about which I am highly doubtful. In the end, "atheist" is the most honest label I can give myself.

    “Agnosticism is, philosophically, the more accurate term because it is simply the assertion of ‘I don’t know.’”

    There are many conceptions of God that I am agnostic about, and many that you and I both would deny. Or would you claim that Zeus just might possibly exist?

    So sorry. My mistake. Have a nice day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous "handle", your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!

    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous “handle”, your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!

    Perhaps 9/11 is of great significance to you, but its historical significance is established, and thereby exhausted. Its political utility has expired. I would explain in greater detail, but you would not understand — it’s an abstract thing that historians discuss on occasion. It is a situation similar to that of the wackadoodles who howl at the moon over Lincoln’s purported perfidy, tyranny, Constitution-destroying, nigger-loving, etc. etc. Too late, even if accurate. Work on something else more constructive. You will never get back the pre-9/11 world. Done and done. All over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    Wackadoodle: A pejorative neologism that sounds cool to teen-age boys, and others who are excited, even convinced by creative name-calling, and think it empowers bogus arguments.

    And now, having a little fun in the holiday spirit, it's my turn to coin a neologism, or two:

    I offer: Gatekeepers and Guardians of the Official Myth --GAGOTOMs-- or GAGs, for short, and my new term for their special brand of specious sophistry-- Gagillogic, to wit:

    The crime is over; therefore the criminals should be allowed to escape.

    Historians should forget about this history, and work on something else.

    Destruction of evidence is permitted because scrap metal.

    Back to reality. For me, life is too short for long articles, having too many irons in the fire, and not always enough fire. 'Makes it tough too, coining neologisms. Fortunately, I have a cool magic aluminum knife to carve out any imperfections when my steel die is cast not quite right.

    Wishing everyone Peace and Prosperity,
    Truth and Justice in 2017.

    --sp--

    , @NoseytheDuke
    As I said previously, 9/11 would continue to be of great importance to the more ALERT, clearly that does not include you. Again, I can see why you would post here as Anonymous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @WorkingClass
    I got about half way through this thinking there must be a pony in here somewhere. Then I dozed off. This terrible writing may express something profound. I will never know.

    I got about half way through this thinking there must be a pony in here somewhere. Then I dozed off. This terrible writing may express something profound. I will never know.

    Not to be too subtle here, but I’ve noticed that the rave reviews seem to be coming from commenters whose writing “may express something profound”. Funny how that works. Profundity abounds.

    “Great Scott, Holmes!! Green hairs!!”
    — Firesign Theatre, circa 1976, The Giant Rat of Sumatra

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. edNels says:
    @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD1RggrWRNE

    Thank you for that link who ever ya are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Mr. Anon says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Wally

    9/11 Truthers don't believe in science..because they don't believe in the scientific process of argumentation...Contact the Engineering and Physics departments of elite Universities and demand a hearing in front of faculty and Grad students...give a detailed scientific and physics presentation on the collapse of the TT and Building 7...and explain why the faculty and grad students in these physics and engineering departments at these elite universities have a substandard grasp of first semester freshman physics....


    In the meantime....FUCK OFF!!!

    Forget it, man! The Truthers have Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, and Rosie O’Donnell on their side, all of them known for being virtually infallible brainiacs. They’re invincible!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands
    Why did .Gov ship out all the evidence to China, ASAP?

    “Why did .Gov ship out all the evidence to China, ASAP?”

    It’s only evidence if one subscribes to your “theory”. Otherwise, it’s just scrap metal that’s in the way. Afterall, after a mass shooting in a mall, why don’t the police preserve the blood stains all over the floors and walls indefinitely, just in case some “researcher” wants to investigate them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands

    It’s only evidence if one subscribes to your “theory”. Otherwise, it’s just scrap metal that’s in the way. Afterall, after a mass shooting in a mall, why don’t the police preserve the blood stains all over the floors and walls indefinitely, just in case some “researcher” wants to investigate them?

     

    I see what you are saying.

    If the blood stains inconceivably took down the structure of the mall at free- fall speed, by golly-let's ship the evidence of the most incredible mall attack ever to CHINA.

    Yawn.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Mr. Anon says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum.

    You, on the other hand, have managed a few ill considered and mostly worthless ad homonym attacks in your comments, but thanks for sharing anyway (kindly forgive my sarcasm).

    p.s. Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

    “Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum.”

    Lengthy? Most definitely. Does he get paid by the word?

    Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    [Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.]

    LOL.

    They are well received in some strange world beyond the stars by readers who disclaim anonymity, alleging instead dubious recognition, even notoriety, in their chosen handles; they write with insights no ordinary soul raised on mere human rations would be capable of discerning, often regaling others with quaint misspellings of common latin phrases.

    , @5371
    To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Gabriel M says:

    This is essentially Moldbug for stupid people written by a stupid person. Still, at least he’s not claiming that the Berlin truck attack was a hoax. Progress of sorts.

    The fact that Unz publishes this loon, but won’t publish Gregory Cochran because he wouldn’t let him spam his blog speaks volumes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. RodW says:
    @Alec Leamas
    The burkini bans aren't so much a matter secularization as an expression of the friction between an alien, invading culture and the host population. Burkas and the like (and what they signify) are a means and manner that Muslims claim public spaces and signal that they're aggressive and ascendant.

    Because of the cult of anti-racism, it's impossible for a man in France to freely say that France ought to be full of Frenchmen, that he doesn't like his villages and towns overtaken by hostile foreign peoples, that France ought to have at least a vestigial Catholic identity, and that he enjoys seeing pretty young French girls frolicking on the beaches of Marseilles in bikinis as an expression of the French way of life. As these natural and understandable objections are made impossible, a Frenchman must express them in a way that is somewhat acceptable within the cult of anti-racism.

    Yes, this is true, but only half the story. The pagan French, having struggled with Catholicism for hundreds of years, have only recently become free enough to take their clothes off on the beach, both male and female together. An innocent sort of wish really. Now comes a foreign invader with the same hideous black garb that the French have only recently thrown off themselves. Of course they react strongly. And they understand that the beach is just the skirmishing line. The PC brigade all post memes on Facebook about how ridiculous and contradictory it all is, but the French will soon elect someone who bears no malice against Muslims in their own ghastly countries, but who will not let them impose their will in France.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Sam Shama says:
    @E. A. Costa
    What you do not seem to understand is that "PC", is also corrosive among the Republicans, the Neo-Cons, the "White Nationalists" and the rest, as well as among the milquetoasts who try to split the difference.

    In fact, trying to force people to split the difference is part of the game.

    "Well, sure, you can oppose the war in Iraq but, you know, you support the troops, right?"

    In fact it is only recently that the long history of the term became adopted by the faux-"Left" in the US.

    There is even a version in Banking and Finance--for one example, the altogether unidirectional "Moral Hazard", just for starters, which is as comic as it is absurd.

    Even more important, each of these different kits keeps changing.

    A serious analysis would begin with the roots of it, not its political applications by or to one group.

    The acronyms are just silly, which may have been intended.

    [There is even a version in Banking and Finance–for one example, the altogether unidirectional “Moral Hazard”, just for starters, which is as comic as it is absurd.]

    Do you mean that recaps were absurd? Perhaps I am misreading.

    Re-capitalisation of systematically important financial institutions by the CB, which will not brook any half-witted arguments from the loony libertarians is a matter very well understood by now, proper regulations being key.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. GogMagog says:

    I really enjoyed reading this lengthy article. Unless you are intellectually dishonest you will have no problem stating this was at the very least interesting and well explained and at most, a devastating critique that lays bare the foundations of this giant edifice that weighs down upon our troubled psyches.

    The little worker ants, seeing the hive being threatened, rush out to hurl insults, discourage, confound and dismiss – they project their own hopes (that 9/11 has been and gone and is irrelevant) and all but confirm main points of the article.

    Great work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Sam Shama says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum."

    Lengthy? Most definitely. Does he get paid by the word?

    Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.

    [Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.]

    LOL.

    They are well received in some strange world beyond the stars by readers who disclaim anonymity, alleging instead dubious recognition, even notoriety, in their chosen handles; they write with insights no ordinary soul raised on mere human rations would be capable of discerning, often regaling others with quaint misspellings of common latin phrases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Sham Sama, your recent comments appear to show you to be engaged in an ever more fierce contest with the Wizard of Oz in the matter of grand puffery, and I do believe that you're catching up. Well done, keep at it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Jonathan Revusky

    It cannot be religious AND anti-religious. Not for non poets at least.
     
    Hmm.... that's interesting. Just a little verbal acuity test, if you don't mind...

    Suppose I (or anybody) were to say to you: "The politician talked at length but he didn't say a damned thing."

    Would you think that this is an inherently meaningless, contradictory sentence?

    Webster agrees with you at #4. You have my apology. I was happier not knowing that BLM and the SJW’s are religionists.

    Definition of religion

    1
    a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

    2
    : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

    3
    archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

    4
    : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Gabriel M
    This is essentially Moldbug for stupid people written by a stupid person. Still, at least he's not claiming that the Berlin truck attack was a hoax. Progress of sorts.

    The fact that Unz publishes this loon, but won't publish Gregory Cochran because he wouldn't let him spam his blog speaks volumes.

    Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why."

    But Cochran, who is a smart guy, is clearly a lot smarter than Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Renoman
    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.

    Those of us over 75 too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. David says:
    @Linh Dinh
    I thank Ron Unz for introducing me to Jonathan Revusky, whose articles I always look forward to. Ron's campaign against the real purveyors of fake news should be loudly applauded. While not every article is perfect, or each writer to my taste, this website has become invaluable to me as a reader. Unz Review makes nearly all the other political webzines superfluous.

    Unz writers suffer some the nastiest abuses anywhere on the web, however, and I assume Ron allows this to show how degraded and vicious our culture has become. Fred Reed's and John Derbyshire's wives are mocked, Paul Craig Roberts and the Saker are called idiots, and the foreign-born are told to go back where they come from. It is striking, and very sad, this pseudonymously spewed venom.

    I thank Jonathan Revusky for another thought-provoking article. I find very useful his listing of The Democracy Myth, Social Justice Narrative, Conspiracy Theory and Good War as the four pillars of this Anti-Religious Religious Fanaticism. You've set the table nicely for further discussion, so bravo!

    I agree that Unz.com is central to my reading, even including books. And I agree that people ridiculing others’ wives is rude. But the thrust of your comment, that you’re surprised Ron allows comments you find objectionable makes you sound like an Asian bent on harmony over vigorous debate. Oh, you’ll say you just want civility, but your standards are not likely Anglo Saxon, a culture degraded mostly by too rapid dilution in these later times.

    Allow me to say that Paul Craig Roberts is a blow hard who happens to be right a lot. No one is ruder without obscenities than he is.

    When Turkey shot down a Russian jet, PCR said about western reportage, “the presstitutes were too lazy to do the math.” A day or two later he published a long email from a pilot showing PCR to be incompetent to do the math.

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.

    PCR’s repeatedly described the generality of Americans as stupid. A view you may endorse.

    He recently quoted a comment saying “we moved the world” when the commenter had written “you moved the world.” Why the slight change? Because PCR was about to ask for money. It’s just a little lie, but it was intentional and shows the kind of person he is.

    If Unz.com has become a forum of excellence, the commenters deserve some of the credit. I don’t read you but I’d be surprised if some harsh comment hasn’t influenced your style.

    According to Kenneth Clark, a 16th century Florentine painter attributed his city’s excellence in the arts to “The spirit of criticism: the air of Florence making minds naturally free, and not content with mediocrity.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.
     
    You mean this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Silverstein "We decided to pull the building" (WTC7)

    What other interpretation do you have to offer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Sparkon says:
    @Anonymous

    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous “handle”, your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!
     
    Perhaps 9/11 is of great significance to you, but its historical significance is established, and thereby exhausted. Its political utility has expired. I would explain in greater detail, but you would not understand -- it's an abstract thing that historians discuss on occasion. It is a situation similar to that of the wackadoodles who howl at the moon over Lincoln's purported perfidy, tyranny, Constitution-destroying, nigger-loving, etc. etc. Too late, even if accurate. Work on something else more constructive. You will never get back the pre-9/11 world. Done and done. All over.

    Wackadoodle: A pejorative neologism that sounds cool to teen-age boys, and others who are excited, even convinced by creative name-calling, and think it empowers bogus arguments.

    And now, having a little fun in the holiday spirit, it’s my turn to coin a neologism, or two:

    I offer: Gatekeepers and Guardians of the Official Myth –GAGOTOMs– or GAGs, for short, and my new term for their special brand of specious sophistry– Gagillogic, to wit:

    The crime is over; therefore the criminals should be allowed to escape.

    Historians should forget about this history, and work on something else.

    Destruction of evidence is permitted because scrap metal.

    Back to reality. For me, life is too short for long articles, having too many irons in the fire, and not always enough fire. ‘Makes it tough too, coining neologisms. Fortunately, I have a cool magic aluminum knife to carve out any imperfections when my steel die is cast not quite right.

    Wishing everyone Peace and Prosperity,
    Truth and Justice in 2017.

    –sp–

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. 5371 says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "Hmmm, it is a fact, easily proven without even leaving this website, that Jonathan Revusky has contributed some lengthy, thought provoking and generally well received articles to this discerning forum."

    Lengthy? Most definitely. Does he get paid by the word?

    Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.

    To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts."

    "Bad" is considerably better than "very bad"; it's still not good. I've read enough of what he's written to have an informed opinion of the poor quality both of his writing and of his thought.

    , @Sam Shama
    [To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.]

    Or it's your Christmas spirit peeking out.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @David
    I agree that Unz.com is central to my reading, even including books. And I agree that people ridiculing others' wives is rude. But the thrust of your comment, that you're surprised Ron allows comments you find objectionable makes you sound like an Asian bent on harmony over vigorous debate. Oh, you'll say you just want civility, but your standards are not likely Anglo Saxon, a culture degraded mostly by too rapid dilution in these later times.

    Allow me to say that Paul Craig Roberts is a blow hard who happens to be right a lot. No one is ruder without obscenities than he is.

    When Turkey shot down a Russian jet, PCR said about western reportage, "the presstitutes were too lazy to do the math." A day or two later he published a long email from a pilot showing PCR to be incompetent to do the math.

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.

    PCR's repeatedly described the generality of Americans as stupid. A view you may endorse.

    He recently quoted a comment saying "we moved the world" when the commenter had written "you moved the world." Why the slight change? Because PCR was about to ask for money. It's just a little lie, but it was intentional and shows the kind of person he is.

    If Unz.com has become a forum of excellence, the commenters deserve some of the credit. I don't read you but I'd be surprised if some harsh comment hasn't influenced your style.

    According to Kenneth Clark, a 16th century Florentine painter attributed his city's excellence in the arts to "The spirit of criticism: the air of Florence making minds naturally free, and not content with mediocrity."

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.

    You mean this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    That's it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building, giving up on fighting the fire, to prevent more loss of life. To me that's the obvious interpretation but I can admit there is some ambiguity. I could make further arguments for my view, but PCR is too dishonest to admit one of his supporting points is doubtful at best.
    , @alexander
    Seamus,

    Lets give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Silverstein for the moment.

    Lets assume that the Fire Chief informs him the fire cannot be put out...and that the catalyst for the fire was flaming debris from one of the towers...

    Lets assume this is all true...because its not unreasonable that it might be.

    He then states the Fire Chief recommends they "pull it"....not pull the firefighters out...but "pull the building"......demo it .

    Okay.

    Makes sense...They cannot contain the fire so they have to bring the building down.

    Fine.

    The only problem with all this , based on the information I have gleaned from listening to demolition experts ...is that it takes SEVERAL WEEKS to properly rig a structure to collapse within its own footprint.

    And nobody can dispute that building #7 collapsed perfectly within its own footprint.

    So the demolition charges for the "pull" must have been placed well in advance of the 9-11 attack .

    Correct ?

    And foresight of this type implies foreknowledge of the event....doesn't it ?

    Please correct me if I am wrong on this, because I would be interested in another plausible scenario.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. David says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.
     
    You mean this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    That’s it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building, giving up on fighting the fire, to prevent more loss of life. To me that’s the obvious interpretation but I can admit there is some ambiguity. I could make further arguments for my view, but PCR is too dishonest to admit one of his supporting points is doubtful at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "That’s it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building,"

    No, that can't be right. No, he must be admitting on television, months after the fact, that he was a party to a vast and sinister conspiracy that murdered thousands of people. Because that's what conspirators always do. That's the only possible rational explanation for his choice of words.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    I'm sure you are an excellent ventriloquist BUT that's NOT what he actually says.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Dear Mr. Revusky,

    Thank you for your contribution. You embrace your points in a unique way which cannot but end to appear somewhat disjointed, but that is what I enjoy.

    Thought provocation should be the intended purpose. Several asswipes tried to criticize you because the article was too long (ADHD Trolls?) or they had read a couple of paragraphs and complained that they were not entertained yet. Unbelievable! Did they demand a refund on the advance?

    Be that as it may, I normally post to challenge positions that I disagree with or to point out errors in thought and/or logic but I wish to give you sincere kudos.

    From a previous article of yours I came to the realization of the phenomenon of the ‘ learned but sincere authority’ and subsequently adopted the term HI IQ Idiot in further conversations with anyone in my association. How many eyes the simple term opened up would have made you proud. Non confrontational but at the same time all encompassing it gave me the inspiration that thankless burdens (yours) can have far reaching effects.

    Ignore your detractors. It only shows that you are reaching the target as per the old flak analogy.

    Best regards,

    TTL

    Read More
    • Agree: CK
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. @Mr. Anon
    "Why did .Gov ship out all the evidence to China, ASAP?"

    It's only evidence if one subscribes to your "theory". Otherwise, it's just scrap metal that's in the way. Afterall, after a mass shooting in a mall, why don't the police preserve the blood stains all over the floors and walls indefinitely, just in case some "researcher" wants to investigate them?

    It’s only evidence if one subscribes to your “theory”. Otherwise, it’s just scrap metal that’s in the way. Afterall, after a mass shooting in a mall, why don’t the police preserve the blood stains all over the floors and walls indefinitely, just in case some “researcher” wants to investigate them?

    I see what you are saying.

    If the blood stains inconceivably took down the structure of the mall at free- fall speed, by golly-let’s ship the evidence of the most incredible mall attack ever to CHINA.

    Yawn.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    You guys keep reciting that "free fall" mantra. I wonder how many of you even know what the term means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Qasim says:

    Wow, another excellent article, Mr. Revusky!

    A bunch of people are criticizing the length of this article and Revusky’s prolix writing style. But any sharing of ideas is dependent on the presence of shared, unstated, underlying assumptions that facilitate the discourse. Since the main thrust of Revusky’s worldview is the rejection of much of our culture’s foundational subconscious maxims, spending a lot of time on explicitly establishing new parameters for debate is inescapable.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general. The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind. In particular, this is an alt-Right sort of website, where many people vociferously criticize the hypocrisy of multiculturalism. But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.

    Western civilization has been largely created (and certainly dominated) by White, Christian, heterosexual men, and multiculturalism has brought under its umbrella numerous groups that seek to undermine this state of affairs. But some groups are more influential in this movement; others are just self-servingly along for the ride.

    There are endless articles (and comments) on this website about the malign influence of Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks on Western societies. And increasingly, the roles of feminists, gays, and Jews in the multicultural project are being highlighted. But there is almost no outrage directed at atheists or the irreligious, although an excellent argument can be made that it is irreligion that forms the primary impetus to destroy traditional Western civilization. For example, it is irreligious women (not nuns) who make up the bulk of the most strident feminists, and it is irreligious secular Jews (not the orthodox) who make up the bulk of the Jews engaging in the “culture of critique”.

    Also, religion tends to inculcate the adoption of the correspondence theory of truth in its followers (a true statement is one that corresponds with external reality), whereas atheists are must more apt to adopt constructivist versions of “truth” (truth being a man-made social construct). It is not a coincidence that our increasingly irreligious societies are so obsessed with POLITICAL correctness (i.e. factual incorrectness), and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S. No religious society has ever come up with such nonsense as race and gender are merely social constructs.

    I have one criticism of the article though. Although I sympathize with the point he was trying to make, comparing irreligious fanaticism to a religion just feeds the unjust stereotype linking religion and fanaticism! This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!! Even more asinine was Richard Dawkins saying one could as easily put the blame on atheist dictators such as Stalin on their mustaches as you could to their atheism! I think it is fairer to say that fanaticism is just an inextricable part of human nature. However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind"

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my "Misdeeds" of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.

    It puzzles me extremely to now hear that a guy such as myself, an innocuous jazz performer, who has only been dedicated to finally blowing the perfect solo, which has not yet happened even after sixty years of trying, it puzzles me now at this stage of the game to find out that I am guilty of horrendous "Misdeeds" of which I have no knowledge whatsoever, unless trying to acomplish a "Perfect" solo, as jazz player can be construed as a "Misdeed".

    Aside from my atheist mind-set, I guess considering oneself ( myself) as a conservative and having voted for DT would perhaps afford me a lesser residence in limbo subsequent to my departure form this lunatic planet, you reckon?

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    , @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi, Qasim. I'm glad you liked the article.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general.
     
    Well, as I said in my concluding remarks, the original intention actually was to write something more focused (and shorter) on the New Atheists. That was actually the origin of the ARRF acronym. But as the article evolved, the ARRF term actually came to mean more the civic religion of the West, which I describe.

    So ARRF is not the same thing as atheism. There are religious groups that have gone full-blown ARRF actually, like reform Judaism with lesbian rabbis and gay marriages. By the way, this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a "reformation", basically means that Islam should become ARRF compatible. So, if, one day you go into the mosque and you have a lesbian imam there who is preparing for an "Islamic gay wedding", you will know that your religion just got ARRF-ized, while you weren't looking, had it's Reformation! (I suspect that in such case, you would probably go out and look for another mosque to join! One that hasn't been ARRF-ized yet!) Oh, and note that the way they will frame it is that Islam is not compatible with.... DEMOCRACY! So it needs to be "reformed"...

    Anyway, the "New Atheists" are a just one virulent strand of ARRF that basically says that society would be better if we just eliminated all religion, so they don't even want to ARRF-ize religion, just get rid of it completely.

    Well, another aspect of this is that these people go well beyond "atheism". Strictly speaking, atheism wold just be the absence of theism, i.e. religiosity, not being religious oneself -- which is anybody's right in a free society. Their thing is extreme hostility towards religion and also blaming religion (pretty absurdly) for most of society's ills. They are more like rabid ANTI-theists than A-theists.

    But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.
     
    Yes, exactly right. One aspect of this whole thing that I did not even touch on (because even writing 12k words, I actually cut out things) is that, for the White nationalists going on and on about the extinction of the white race, well, the biggest A-1-A problem there is not actually immigration, it's the fertility rate of the white people themselves! In Spain, it's way below replacement level and this used to be a Catholic society where people had big families. But it's the same story in Italy, for example. The French, I think, actually are still at close to replacement level for some reason, but Germany has totally cratered. A people that doesn't reproduce itself dies off whether there is immigration or not! So if you're a white nationalist, you should be much more anti-ARRF than anti-Islam.

    My view is that any society that drops its traditional religious culture for ARRF pretty much invariably has its birth rate crater. Actually, I thought finally I'd leave this for a later essay because it's a big topic in itself. Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it's ARRF.

    Another key aspect of this is the whole synthetic narrative of this big conflict between Christianity and Islam. In reality, the conflict is between ARRF and Islam. And its not even that. It's between ARRF and traditional religions. (If you've ARRF-ized your religion somehow, then it's more or less okay, but if your religion is still saying these hateful things like that marriage is a man and a woman, then...)

    and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S.
     
    Yeah, I agree. That was a point I touched on in the piece. I'm pretty sure that Vladimir Putin and that whole tendency in Russian politics basically understand this, and that is why they are interested in trying to revitalize Russia's traditional religious culture of Orthodox Christianity. I suppose that after so many decades of communism, it was really in bad shape, but they're trying to get a flame going out of the cinders, I think. But my sense is that this is the reasoning.

    That whole Pussy Riot thing was sort of a skirmish in the ARRF versus traditional religious culture conflict, though probably those silly girls did not really understand what they were part of.

    This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!!
     
    Yeah, I ran across that and it seems to me like Harris is scoring an "own goal" there. Because once you recognize that a secular ideology can be just as fanatical and murderous as any religion-based one, then how can you argue that getting rid of the traditional religions is going to make the world better?

    Actually, though, the secular fanaticism is much more murderous, it seems. According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, mind you), Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of approximately 2000 people. And that was in an entire decades long career of persecuting heretics and infidels. Okay, it's a serious matter, 2000 people, but obviously the Spanish Inquisition is total chickenshit compared to atheist communists in the 20th century! And compared to the ARRF war of terror against the Islamic world, where it's also MILLIONS killed. So WTF are these people talking about?

    However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.
     
    Yeah, I don't see how any honest person could come to a different conclusion from that. Now, of course, again, I would make the point that the people in question do go way beyond just being atheistic, in the sense that they're not into religion -- like I myself am not religious, but I respect the people who are. These people are violently ANTI-theistic.

    But, surely you have noticed that the anti-religious ferver of Dawkins and the rest is, I think, at least 80% Islamophobia. I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no? You hate Islam, okay, but you hate Christianity, you hate Hinduism and Buddhism... You just hate it all. In that case, I could actually respect them a bit more. But the fact that all their hatred of religion is concentrated on Islam does kind of tell you who is really behind this, what interests they are serving. Well, these people are total Zionist tools.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands

    It’s only evidence if one subscribes to your “theory”. Otherwise, it’s just scrap metal that’s in the way. Afterall, after a mass shooting in a mall, why don’t the police preserve the blood stains all over the floors and walls indefinitely, just in case some “researcher” wants to investigate them?

     

    I see what you are saying.

    If the blood stains inconceivably took down the structure of the mall at free- fall speed, by golly-let's ship the evidence of the most incredible mall attack ever to CHINA.

    Yawn.

    You guys keep reciting that “free fall” mantra. I wonder how many of you even know what the term means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    This has been discussed endlessly, even on this webzine.

    I don't believe anything the criminal syndicate says happened on 9/11, or anything else the surveillance apparatus has conned YOU into defending.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Mr. Anon says:
    @5371
    To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.

    “To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.”

    “Bad” is considerably better than “very bad”; it’s still not good. I’ve read enough of what he’s written to have an informed opinion of the poor quality both of his writing and of his thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Mr. Anon says:
    @David
    That's it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building, giving up on fighting the fire, to prevent more loss of life. To me that's the obvious interpretation but I can admit there is some ambiguity. I could make further arguments for my view, but PCR is too dishonest to admit one of his supporting points is doubtful at best.

    “That’s it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building,”

    No, that can’t be right. No, he must be admitting on television, months after the fact, that he was a party to a vast and sinister conspiracy that murdered thousands of people. Because that’s what conspirators always do. That’s the only possible rational explanation for his choice of words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    No, that can’t be right. No, he must be admitting on television, months after the fact, that he was a party to a vast and sinister conspiracy that murdered thousands of people. Because that’s what conspirators always do. That’s the only possible rational explanation for his choice of words.
     
    No. This video was done several years after 9/11. People were beginning to ask, 'What about building 7'? So he had to try and come up with some kind of explanation as to why it went down. He was forced to concede our--I'm a truther--main point: namely, that WTC 7 could only have been brought down by controlled demo, since no plane had ever struck it. No one was buying the flying-débris theory anymore. He just had to invent some cock-and-bull story to explain why; nobody's buying the new theory either. No demo-expert is going to volunteer to set up a building for CD while it's on fire!

    So, we have now established that at least one of the 3 buildings that went down that day had to have been rigged for CD before 9/11.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Sam Shama says:
    @5371
    To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.

    [To be fair, this piece, though excessively prolix, was considerably better than his previous efforts.]

    Or it’s your Christmas spirit peeking out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Mr. Anon
    You guys keep reciting that "free fall" mantra. I wonder how many of you even know what the term means.

    This has been discussed endlessly, even on this webzine.

    I don’t believe anything the criminal syndicate says happened on 9/11, or anything else the surveillance apparatus has conned YOU into defending.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "This has been discussed endlessly, even on this webzine."

    But, evidently, not understood. There is so little you guys understand. Your understanding of physics seems to be derived from comic books.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. maatbeker says:

    I think that with your ARRF you conflate so called ‘cultural marxism’ with atheism which seems wrong to me. atheism is simply absence of believe in a deity that created the universe and everything in it. From that no social theory follows whatsoever. That is not to say a secular atheist don’t need a social theory, they just don’t accept getting their ethics from traditional religion. They have to reason about it and it is quite possible to make colossal mistakes and venture into complete nonsense when it comes to that. But as long as nobody conclusively refute a theory, it stands. That is what’s been happening. You have an edifice of progressive liberalism that has been created by the social departments of Universities based on radical environmentalism and theorists like John Rawls that is a big toolbox you can take from when attacking biblical values and I guess a lot of people may not agree but are simply intellectually outgunned in these arguments and do not have a comprehensive theory themselves to fight back (tradition religion, while some of its traditions still make sense is outdated and..lets face is total bull-crap). What now is happening is that people don’t care anymore if they can’t win the argument, they just stick to their opinion anyway, they sensed there is something wrong with the pc-narrative, couldn’t comprehensively refute it and Trump just sticks to his opinions on a case by case bases with wider ideology behind it. If you can’t refute it, just ignore it. It is like untying the Gordian knot with your sword.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  127. @Talha
    Hey NtD,

    Or in another context, "Well Watson, the man is dead - whether it was murder or self defense - who cares? Let's go smoke our pipes, shall we?"

    Peace.

    Very well put, Talha. I really think it is a shame that people are allowed to comment more than two or three times using Anonymous, anon or some variation. People who flaunt their ignorance in the manner that Anonymous has should at least be identifiable. It would be my one request for Ron Unz to change about this terrific forum.

    Cheers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Anonymous

    I can see why you would want to use the Anonymous “handle”, your comment is possibly THE most idiotic one on here, and I mean the the whole website not just this thread. Congratulations!
     
    Perhaps 9/11 is of great significance to you, but its historical significance is established, and thereby exhausted. Its political utility has expired. I would explain in greater detail, but you would not understand -- it's an abstract thing that historians discuss on occasion. It is a situation similar to that of the wackadoodles who howl at the moon over Lincoln's purported perfidy, tyranny, Constitution-destroying, nigger-loving, etc. etc. Too late, even if accurate. Work on something else more constructive. You will never get back the pre-9/11 world. Done and done. All over.

    As I said previously, 9/11 would continue to be of great importance to the more ALERT, clearly that does not include you. Again, I can see why you would post here as Anonymous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Sam Shama
    [Thought provoking? Well, his essays have provoked me to think: Why on Earth would anyone bother to publish this tiresome, logorrheic clown?

    Well Received? Obviously not by everyone, not nearly.]

    LOL.

    They are well received in some strange world beyond the stars by readers who disclaim anonymity, alleging instead dubious recognition, even notoriety, in their chosen handles; they write with insights no ordinary soul raised on mere human rations would be capable of discerning, often regaling others with quaint misspellings of common latin phrases.

    Sham Sama, your recent comments appear to show you to be engaged in an ever more fierce contest with the Wizard of Oz in the matter of grand puffery, and I do believe that you’re catching up. Well done, keep at it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Are you upset being caught ignorant of common latin phrases you pretend to know?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @David
    I agree that Unz.com is central to my reading, even including books. And I agree that people ridiculing others' wives is rude. But the thrust of your comment, that you're surprised Ron allows comments you find objectionable makes you sound like an Asian bent on harmony over vigorous debate. Oh, you'll say you just want civility, but your standards are not likely Anglo Saxon, a culture degraded mostly by too rapid dilution in these later times.

    Allow me to say that Paul Craig Roberts is a blow hard who happens to be right a lot. No one is ruder without obscenities than he is.

    When Turkey shot down a Russian jet, PCR said about western reportage, "the presstitutes were too lazy to do the math." A day or two later he published a long email from a pilot showing PCR to be incompetent to do the math.

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.

    PCR's repeatedly described the generality of Americans as stupid. A view you may endorse.

    He recently quoted a comment saying "we moved the world" when the commenter had written "you moved the world." Why the slight change? Because PCR was about to ask for money. It's just a little lie, but it was intentional and shows the kind of person he is.

    If Unz.com has become a forum of excellence, the commenters deserve some of the credit. I don't read you but I'd be surprised if some harsh comment hasn't influenced your style.

    According to Kenneth Clark, a 16th century Florentine painter attributed his city's excellence in the arts to "The spirit of criticism: the air of Florence making minds naturally free, and not content with mediocrity."

    Silverstein “We decided to pull the building” (WTC7)

    What other interpretation do you have to offer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Silverstein “We decided to pull the building” (WTC7)"

    You're wrong. He didn't say "pull the building". He said "pull it". Look it up. Your quotes aren't even quotes.

    "What other interpretation do you have to offer?"

    Pull the fire crews?

    Or do you think that multi-millionaires are in the habit of confessing to mass murder on PBS?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @David
    That's it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building, giving up on fighting the fire, to prevent more loss of life. To me that's the obvious interpretation but I can admit there is some ambiguity. I could make further arguments for my view, but PCR is too dishonest to admit one of his supporting points is doubtful at best.

    I’m sure you are an excellent ventriloquist BUT that’s NOT what he actually says.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Jonathan Revusky

    He also has done an enormous amount of brilliant work
     
    Well, fine. I never said otherwise.

    The problem here is that you don't really understand the point I was making. It's not really about attacking Scahill specifically. All of these guys behave roughly the same way in that spot. Chris Hedges certainly... Matt Taibbi... Alexander Cockburn was awful... that's just off the top of my head... certainly, anybody who is mainstream enough to be on television is never going to touch certain things. I'm not saying that none of these people do good work at all. The point is that there are things they just won't touch.

    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!

    So here is today’s litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.

    I have, having informed Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that his Co-Sponsorship of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Stop Arming Terrorists Act, is great, but that by its own definition such an act I identifying not only a felony, but more importantly an act of Treason, and that by not addressing this felony and treason, he is being warned that he is party to such Treason as Misprision of Treason.

    This challenge needs to be addressed, by competent news outlets, and more importantly citizens willing to make the challenge of their elected servants whose sole duty above all other considerations is to uphold the Constitution. Remind them that it may be their own family that may be killed in a plane taken down by a Man-Pa that Congress and Obama gave to terrorists.

    We have Professor Francis Boyle, who wrote the Articles of Impeachment against GHW Bush by Rep. Henry Gonzales willing to write up Impeachment Papers on Obama right now, while Congress is technically still in Session, and World War III still smoldering.

    So act.

    Bruce Marshall
    Rochester, Vermont

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!
     
    Uhh, all of them are afraid of telling the truth -- at least about the key third rail issues. That's precisely what makes them gatekeepers. There is a set of things they will never tell the truth about. In my view, that's not really a left/right issue.

    So here is today’s litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.
     
    I hope this doesn't come across as too dismissive or anything, but for me, the problem with what you're saying is that it's based on their framing of the question. Terrorists, shmerrorists.... Of course the exact same people can be "terrorists" or they're "freedom fighters" depending on shifting agendas. So the fact that the "freedom fighters" that the government is supporting today were labeled "terrorists" yesterday... well, that's worth pointing out, I suppose, but just like all the bullshit and deceptions are worth calling out, but I don't see it as a sine qua non either frankly.

    To be brutally honest, for me, this framing that Obama specifically is a "traitor" because Obama is supporting the "freedom fighters" who are really "terrorists", I find the whole thing pretty hard to get excited about. Not just because Obama is a lame duck anyway. The thing is that it's not Obama himself doing these things. He's mostly just a puppet. Supporting whatever faction in ME politics, this is Deep State stuff. Talking as if this is all done by whatever front-man (Obama in this case) they've put in there -- really, I feel it's a very superficial analysis that doesn't really get very far.

    , @Mr. Anon
    You don't seem to understand people like Revusky. He doesn't want political change. He wants to be a high-priest in a mystery-cult, in which only he and a few select others are privy to the true, secret knowledge. Only his secret version of history is real history. Everything that the rest of you believe is illusion and falsehood. If he has to make up a bunch of ridiculous twaddle to effect this, then he is cool with that.

    In short - he wants to be a gate-keeper.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. alexander says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    PCR lies when he says video exists where Silverstein takes credit for pulling down 7 WTC. At best the interpretation is highly doubtful.
     
    You mean this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    Seamus,

    Lets give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Silverstein for the moment.

    Lets assume that the Fire Chief informs him the fire cannot be put out…and that the catalyst for the fire was flaming debris from one of the towers…

    Lets assume this is all true…because its not unreasonable that it might be.

    He then states the Fire Chief recommends they “pull it”….not pull the firefighters out…but “pull the building”……demo it .

    Okay.

    Makes sense…They cannot contain the fire so they have to bring the building down.

    Fine.

    The only problem with all this , based on the information I have gleaned from listening to demolition experts …is that it takes SEVERAL WEEKS to properly rig a structure to collapse within its own footprint.

    And nobody can dispute that building #7 collapsed perfectly within its own footprint.

    So the demolition charges for the “pull” must have been placed well in advance of the 9-11 attack .

    Correct ?

    And foresight of this type implies foreknowledge of the event….doesn’t it ?

    Please correct me if I am wrong on this, because I would be interested in another plausible scenario.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "And foresight of this type implies foreknowledge of the event….doesn’t it ?"

    And mass-murderering millionaires with everything to lose are in the habit of giving full and free confessions, completely unprompted, during television interviews. Aren't they?

    Is there anything so stupid that you guys won't believe it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. interesting article. but I think moldbug did a better job explaining progressives (https://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/) their religion is equality. and he called the elites of this group the cathedral. Honestly I think his explanation and historical prospective is much better than this article and will last longer than ARRF will.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. Of course you are right but let us NOT say that the fire could not be put out because it simply ISN’T true. It is unreasonable to assume that it IS true. The fires were not very hot and thermal imagery validates that.

    The building was wired for demolition and, as you say, that takes time to do. The Salomon Building (WTC7) was reported to have collapsed about 15 mins (BBC) before it actually did. How’s that for prior knowledge?

    WTC7 was allegedly used to store files that were evidence of various different cases of fraud that were under investigation by the SEC. They were all, conveniently for some, destroyed.

    WTC7 is also the likely location for the control centre for the much more complex demolition projects undertaken that same day, namely WTC 1 & 2. It had to come down. Silverstein was just seeking the most opportune moment to announce the justification for it.

    Maybe there was supposed to be a bigger fire, maybe there were plans for it to be more damaged by the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 or maybe another attack was planned, who knows?

    What we DO know is that the damage to the building was minimal, the fires were not very hot, there was little danger to firefighters and absolutely NO LOGICAL reason for it to collapse straight down in practically free fall speed, as if the building suddenly turned to paper or matchwood.

    “Pulling” IS a term used in building demolitions. British men use it as a term for picking up women. Evacuating is the term used by emergency services for removing people from danger.

    I hope all decent Americans will call on their representatives to demand a new, open and independent investigation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "The Salomon Building (WTC7) was reported to have collapsed about 15 mins (BBC) before it actually did. How’s that for prior knowledge?"

    Right - because in the chaos of the day, it is completely impossible that a report by someone that a building "might collapse" would be confused with "did collapse". Such things never happen. Journalists always - always! - get everything right.

    "What we DO know is that the damage to the building was minimal, the fires were not very hot,"

    That is complete crap. The fires were massive (there are pictures of them, readily available with a few minutes googling). They burned, uncontrolled, for about eight hours before the structure collapsed.

    "“Pulling” IS a term used in building demolitions."

    "Pulling" is an english word used for a lot of things. Barbeque restaraunts serve "Pulled Pork". Is the pork cooked with explosives?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands
    This has been discussed endlessly, even on this webzine.

    I don't believe anything the criminal syndicate says happened on 9/11, or anything else the surveillance apparatus has conned YOU into defending.

    “This has been discussed endlessly, even on this webzine.”

    But, evidently, not understood. There is so little you guys understand. Your understanding of physics seems to be derived from comic books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    The only use I ever had for a comic book, is for rolling-up and swatting pests like you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Mr. Anon says:
    @alexander
    Seamus,

    Lets give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Silverstein for the moment.

    Lets assume that the Fire Chief informs him the fire cannot be put out...and that the catalyst for the fire was flaming debris from one of the towers...

    Lets assume this is all true...because its not unreasonable that it might be.

    He then states the Fire Chief recommends they "pull it"....not pull the firefighters out...but "pull the building"......demo it .

    Okay.

    Makes sense...They cannot contain the fire so they have to bring the building down.

    Fine.

    The only problem with all this , based on the information I have gleaned from listening to demolition experts ...is that it takes SEVERAL WEEKS to properly rig a structure to collapse within its own footprint.

    And nobody can dispute that building #7 collapsed perfectly within its own footprint.

    So the demolition charges for the "pull" must have been placed well in advance of the 9-11 attack .

    Correct ?

    And foresight of this type implies foreknowledge of the event....doesn't it ?

    Please correct me if I am wrong on this, because I would be interested in another plausible scenario.

    “And foresight of this type implies foreknowledge of the event….doesn’t it ?”

    And mass-murderering millionaires with everything to lose are in the habit of giving full and free confessions, completely unprompted, during television interviews. Aren’t they?

    Is there anything so stupid that you guys won’t believe it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    And mass-murderering millionaires with everything to lose are in the habit of giving full and free confessions, completely unprompted, during television interviews. Aren’t they?
     
    Well, nobody said anything about what people are in the habit of doing. It seems like the guy slipped up. He said they "pulled" the building which could only mean that it was pre-rigged for demolition beforehand. However, the official story was that the building imploded in a perfectly symmetrical manner from undirected fires -- which is an impossibility.

    In any case, what is your explanation of the BBC reporting the collapse of the building before it happened? Do you really think there is nothing at all odd about that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Mr. Anon says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Of course you are right but let us NOT say that the fire could not be put out because it simply ISN'T true. It is unreasonable to assume that it IS true. The fires were not very hot and thermal imagery validates that.

    The building was wired for demolition and, as you say, that takes time to do. The Salomon Building (WTC7) was reported to have collapsed about 15 mins (BBC) before it actually did. How's that for prior knowledge?

    WTC7 was allegedly used to store files that were evidence of various different cases of fraud that were under investigation by the SEC. They were all, conveniently for some, destroyed.

    WTC7 is also the likely location for the control centre for the much more complex demolition projects undertaken that same day, namely WTC 1 & 2. It had to come down. Silverstein was just seeking the most opportune moment to announce the justification for it.

    Maybe there was supposed to be a bigger fire, maybe there were plans for it to be more damaged by the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 or maybe another attack was planned, who knows?

    What we DO know is that the damage to the building was minimal, the fires were not very hot, there was little danger to firefighters and absolutely NO LOGICAL reason for it to collapse straight down in practically free fall speed, as if the building suddenly turned to paper or matchwood.

    "Pulling" IS a term used in building demolitions. British men use it as a term for picking up women. Evacuating is the term used by emergency services for removing people from danger.

    I hope all decent Americans will call on their representatives to demand a new, open and independent investigation.

    “The Salomon Building (WTC7) was reported to have collapsed about 15 mins (BBC) before it actually did. How’s that for prior knowledge?”

    Right – because in the chaos of the day, it is completely impossible that a report by someone that a building “might collapse” would be confused with “did collapse”. Such things never happen. Journalists always – always! – get everything right.

    “What we DO know is that the damage to the building was minimal, the fires were not very hot,”

    That is complete crap. The fires were massive (there are pictures of them, readily available with a few minutes googling). They burned, uncontrolled, for about eight hours before the structure collapsed.

    ““Pulling” IS a term used in building demolitions.”

    “Pulling” is an english word used for a lot of things. Barbeque restaraunts serve “Pulled Pork”. Is the pork cooked with explosives?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Mr. Anon says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Silverstein "We decided to pull the building" (WTC7)

    What other interpretation do you have to offer?

    “Silverstein “We decided to pull the building” (WTC7)”

    You’re wrong. He didn’t say “pull the building”. He said “pull it”. Look it up. Your quotes aren’t even quotes.

    “What other interpretation do you have to offer?”

    Pull the fire crews?

    Or do you think that multi-millionaires are in the habit of confessing to mass murder on PBS?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Or do you think that multi-millionaires are in the habit of confessing to mass murder on PBS?
     
    wasn't Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?

    didn't the CIA provide a video of 'him' confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?

    if I had to pick, based on everything I know about the two men, in my opinion, Lucky Larry is seven billion times more likely to have perpetrated the crime than that man with a laptop and a cell phone in a cave thousands of miles away, who would have very little reason for wanting the US to slaughter and maim untold millions of Muslims the world over.

    But for Lucky Larry, who's very good friends with ("it's very good") Bibi, they might consider such a crime a pretext to get Americans to destroy countries that Israel considers inconvenient. See?

    And Lucky Larry gets several billion dollars of insurance money. (perhaps the most audacious case of 'Jewish lightning' ever!) Such a deal!

    who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?

    who had more friends in high places, like Zionists and duel citizens at the Pentagon and CIA and at the highest levels of the Bush administration to shut down NORAD and SAC? Osama, or Lucky?

    who had more friends in the media?

    who had more friends in the intelligence communities?

    who had more means?

    who is more likely to be a murderous, lowlife POS who would cynically conspire to slaughter Americans out of greed and global supremacist agendas in order to get richer and foment Eternal Wars for Israel?

    those are just a few of the questions off the top of my head, for why I'd be more likely to figure it was more likely Lucky Larry who concocted a plan to get insurance cash, than Osama to strike at the Great Satan, who would no doubt rain down death and misery upon his people.

    at least in the context of a question of the character of the two men

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Mr. Anon says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why.

    “Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why.”

    But Cochran, who is a smart guy, is clearly a lot smarter than Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    ...Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.
     
    Hi, I asked you this before, but I'm pretty sure you never gave a straight answer.

    As I recall, in the days following the attacks of 9/11, the government put out a pretty amazing story, that the whole thing had been orchestrated from faroff Afghanistan, by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama Bin Laden.

    Could you outline what the strongest available evidence for that story is?

    If there is no evidence for the story, that's an answer too, but you really ought to answer the question, no?

    , @Daniel Chieh
    Evidently in his wisdom, Dr. Cochran decided also to forsake this particular income stream because of his differences with Mr. Unz. Why are we to argue with his intellect?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Mr. Anon
    "Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why."

    But Cochran, who is a smart guy, is clearly a lot smarter than Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.

    …Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.

    Hi, I asked you this before, but I’m pretty sure you never gave a straight answer.

    As I recall, in the days following the attacks of 9/11, the government put out a pretty amazing story, that the whole thing had been orchestrated from faroff Afghanistan, by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama Bin Laden.

    Could you outline what the strongest available evidence for that story is?

    If there is no evidence for the story, that’s an answer too, but you really ought to answer the question, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    I did answer. I don't care what you "think" I answered.

    I asked you this question before, but you never gave a straight answer: Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972? I suspect that if you answered truthfully - with your actual opinion - you would alienate a lot of your fans, and that's why you refuse to answer such a simple, straight-forward question.

    While we're at it: Is the Earth flat?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Mr. Anon
    "And foresight of this type implies foreknowledge of the event….doesn’t it ?"

    And mass-murderering millionaires with everything to lose are in the habit of giving full and free confessions, completely unprompted, during television interviews. Aren't they?

    Is there anything so stupid that you guys won't believe it?

    And mass-murderering millionaires with everything to lose are in the habit of giving full and free confessions, completely unprompted, during television interviews. Aren’t they?

    Well, nobody said anything about what people are in the habit of doing. It seems like the guy slipped up. He said they “pulled” the building which could only mean that it was pre-rigged for demolition beforehand. However, the official story was that the building imploded in a perfectly symmetrical manner from undirected fires — which is an impossibility.

    In any case, what is your explanation of the BBC reporting the collapse of the building before it happened? Do you really think there is nothing at all odd about that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "He said they “pulled” the building which could only mean that it was pre-rigged for demolition beforehand."

    I'd say you were deluded, as it fits with the tone of everything you've written, except that clearly you must know better. He did not say they "pulled the building". You're lying.

    The fixation on particular words is a bizarre kind of word-magic that you clowns seem to believe in. You are not sceptics. You are not "researchers". You are shamans in an obscure cult.

    "In any case, what is your explanation of the BBC reporting the collapse of the building before it happened? Do you really think there is nothing at all odd about that?"

    I just explained what I thought it meant. Do I think it odd that a journalist misinterpereted a note handed to them? Do I think it odd that a journalist reported something that was not true? No. Do you think journalists get everything right?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Qasim
    Wow, another excellent article, Mr. Revusky!

    A bunch of people are criticizing the length of this article and Revusky's prolix writing style. But any sharing of ideas is dependent on the presence of shared, unstated, underlying assumptions that facilitate the discourse. Since the main thrust of Revusky's worldview is the rejection of much of our culture's foundational subconscious maxims, spending a lot of time on explicitly establishing new parameters for debate is inescapable.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general. The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind. In particular, this is an alt-Right sort of website, where many people vociferously criticize the hypocrisy of multiculturalism. But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.

    Western civilization has been largely created (and certainly dominated) by White, Christian, heterosexual men, and multiculturalism has brought under its umbrella numerous groups that seek to undermine this state of affairs. But some groups are more influential in this movement; others are just self-servingly along for the ride.

    There are endless articles (and comments) on this website about the malign influence of Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks on Western societies. And increasingly, the roles of feminists, gays, and Jews in the multicultural project are being highlighted. But there is almost no outrage directed at atheists or the irreligious, although an excellent argument can be made that it is irreligion that forms the primary impetus to destroy traditional Western civilization. For example, it is irreligious women (not nuns) who make up the bulk of the most strident feminists, and it is irreligious secular Jews (not the orthodox) who make up the bulk of the Jews engaging in the "culture of critique".

    Also, religion tends to inculcate the adoption of the correspondence theory of truth in its followers (a true statement is one that corresponds with external reality), whereas atheists are must more apt to adopt constructivist versions of "truth" (truth being a man-made social construct). It is not a coincidence that our increasingly irreligious societies are so obsessed with POLITICAL correctness (i.e. factual incorrectness), and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S. No religious society has ever come up with such nonsense as race and gender are merely social constructs.

    I have one criticism of the article though. Although I sympathize with the point he was trying to make, comparing irreligious fanaticism to a religion just feeds the unjust stereotype linking religion and fanaticism! This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!! Even more asinine was Richard Dawkins saying one could as easily put the blame on atheist dictators such as Stalin on their mustaches as you could to their atheism! I think it is fairer to say that fanaticism is just an inextricable part of human nature. However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.

    ” The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind”

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my “Misdeeds” of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.

    It puzzles me extremely to now hear that a guy such as myself, an innocuous jazz performer, who has only been dedicated to finally blowing the perfect solo, which has not yet happened even after sixty years of trying, it puzzles me now at this stage of the game to find out that I am guilty of horrendous “Misdeeds” of which I have no knowledge whatsoever, unless trying to acomplish a “Perfect” solo, as jazz player can be construed as a “Misdeed”.

    Aside from my atheist mind-set, I guess considering oneself ( myself) as a conservative and having voted for DT would perhaps afford me a lesser residence in limbo subsequent to my departure form this lunatic planet, you reckon?

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Qasim
    Come on Mr. Mensa, just because you personally aren't involved in Communism, Cultural Marxism, feminism etc., that means pinning these things on your belief system is completely invalid?

    Aside from my atheist mind-set, I guess considering oneself ( myself) as a conservative and having voted for DT would perhaps afford me a lesser residence in limbo subsequent to my departure form this lunatic planet, you reckon?

    I reckon :)
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my “Misdeeds” of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.
     
    Hey, Mr. Certified Genius man, when you hear the sentence: "The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor" does that for you mean that all the Japanese participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor?

    I suppose it must mean that, because when you hear "Atheists did X and atheists did Y" you take it to mean that you personally did those things. (Even things that happened before you were born, I suppose...)

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society
     
    If you really were such a genius, you wouldn't feel such a need to proclaim it. As the Bard said: "The lady doth protest too much."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Bruce Marshall
    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers....whose afraid of saying the truth?!

    So here is today's litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.

    I have, having informed Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that his Co-Sponsorship of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Stop Arming Terrorists Act, is great, but that by its own definition such an act I identifying not only a felony, but more importantly an act of Treason, and that by not addressing this felony and treason, he is being warned that he is party to such Treason as Misprision of Treason.

    This challenge needs to be addressed, by competent news outlets, and more importantly citizens willing to make the challenge of their elected servants whose sole duty above all other considerations is to uphold the Constitution. Remind them that it may be their own family that may be killed in a plane taken down by a Man-Pa that Congress and Obama gave to terrorists.

    We have Professor Francis Boyle, who wrote the Articles of Impeachment against GHW Bush by Rep. Henry Gonzales willing to write up Impeachment Papers on Obama right now, while Congress is technically still in Session, and World War III still smoldering.

    So act.

    Bruce Marshall
    Rochester, Vermont

    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!

    Uhh, all of them are afraid of telling the truth — at least about the key third rail issues. That’s precisely what makes them gatekeepers. There is a set of things they will never tell the truth about. In my view, that’s not really a left/right issue.

    So here is today’s litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.

    I hope this doesn’t come across as too dismissive or anything, but for me, the problem with what you’re saying is that it’s based on their framing of the question. Terrorists, shmerrorists…. Of course the exact same people can be “terrorists” or they’re “freedom fighters” depending on shifting agendas. So the fact that the “freedom fighters” that the government is supporting today were labeled “terrorists” yesterday… well, that’s worth pointing out, I suppose, but just like all the bullshit and deceptions are worth calling out, but I don’t see it as a sine qua non either frankly.

    To be brutally honest, for me, this framing that Obama specifically is a “traitor” because Obama is supporting the “freedom fighters” who are really “terrorists”, I find the whole thing pretty hard to get excited about. Not just because Obama is a lame duck anyway. The thing is that it’s not Obama himself doing these things. He’s mostly just a puppet. Supporting whatever faction in ME politics, this is Deep State stuff. Talking as if this is all done by whatever front-man (Obama in this case) they’ve put in there — really, I feel it’s a very superficial analysis that doesn’t really get very far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruce Marshall
    Thanks for the reply!

    First you have proven once again that I need to better proofread my posts, for "whose" should have been "those" in my line


    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!
     
    Of those afraid of telling the truth, I find your reply to the issue of "Obama's Treason" reeks of an obfuscating fear that exactly resonates with the type of garbage that a Scahill or any one of the other 9/11 gatekeepers might blather.

    Yes of course Obama is a puppet, as I was a contributing author to Webster Tarpley's pre-nomination book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, that correctly identified Obama the Wall Street puppet, spawn of the Weather Underground and protege of Brzezinski, where we correctly stated that Obama would lead us to war against Russia and civil unrest in the U.S, so I am well aware of how this works. We did it before anyone else, in an emergency book whose mission was to stop his being elected.

    While you may think that it is a superficial analysis to call Obama a terrorist, the fact of the matter is that he is a terrorist, a warmonger with a t rack record, and thus a potential thermonuclear suicide bomber, as he is killer who prides himself on his killing acumen, the man who has laid to waste Libya, Syria, overthrew the legitimate government of the Ukraine and other nations utilizing privatized CIA "Color Revolution" and brute force when that fails, in order to further hegemony for the financial oligarchy. World War III is smoldering, with Obama putting logs on the fire for a full conflagration as the "Mau Mau" agent he is.

    So did you ever call for the impeachment of Obama? I would bet not. Why you probably did not even support the move to impeach Bush and Cheney, and would have run for the hills if
    asked to sign a document like the Kennebunkport Warning.

    The issue is that sometimes simple action based is more important than long winded analysis that ultimately does nothing.

    In the present circumstances, Obama is more than just a "puppet" which is an excuse, he is President. To use the excuse that he is a puppet, to not make him responsible for his crimes, beginning with honestly identifying what those crimes are, is to treaty Barack like
    a 'Boy', which is exactly why he was chosen and groomed by a faction of the "Deep State" to be immune from such actions by citizens and elected officials, of actually giving him the honor of being treated like a "Man" which means identifying his crimes and seeking action to protect ourselves from such a kidnappper and murderer who is holding the entire world hostage, perpetuating the situation with selected murders for everyone to watch and become entranced and unable to act, but to just call him a puppet of the deep state, but not to act.


    Thus the tragedy of Obama, his being but a "Boy", is our tragedy, the audience the observers of
    this tragedy, and the tragic victims ourselves, who listen to that chorus who wants to say that we can do nothing, we can not make assertions of what is plain and obvious. To laugh at those of us willing to say that this is Misprision of Treason and Felony to our Congressional Representatives, to do their job, no matter if it might cost their life, for that is the same description they are sending the young, without work, to lose life and limb what are lies.

    To say "Terrorists, shmerrorists" is frankly indicative of an attitude of sophistry that keeps the lies going and going. Why the "Deep State" really loves you!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Sam Shama says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Sham Sama, your recent comments appear to show you to be engaged in an ever more fierce contest with the Wizard of Oz in the matter of grand puffery, and I do believe that you're catching up. Well done, keep at it.

    Are you upset being caught ignorant of common latin phrases you pretend to know?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Qasim says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind"

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my "Misdeeds" of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.

    It puzzles me extremely to now hear that a guy such as myself, an innocuous jazz performer, who has only been dedicated to finally blowing the perfect solo, which has not yet happened even after sixty years of trying, it puzzles me now at this stage of the game to find out that I am guilty of horrendous "Misdeeds" of which I have no knowledge whatsoever, unless trying to acomplish a "Perfect" solo, as jazz player can be construed as a "Misdeed".

    Aside from my atheist mind-set, I guess considering oneself ( myself) as a conservative and having voted for DT would perhaps afford me a lesser residence in limbo subsequent to my departure form this lunatic planet, you reckon?

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Come on Mr. Mensa, just because you personally aren’t involved in Communism, Cultural Marxism, feminism etc., that means pinning these things on your belief system is completely invalid?

    Aside from my atheist mind-set, I guess considering oneself ( myself) as a conservative and having voted for DT would perhaps afford me a lesser residence in limbo subsequent to my departure form this lunatic planet, you reckon?

    I reckon :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Mr. Revusky gets alot points for being active in the comments section.

    Don’t agree with all parts of the article but still a good read. anything that provokes thinking on the part of the readers is good reading :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Mr. Revusky gets alot points for being active in the comments section.

    After you've written 12,000 words of obscure squid ink, what're a few more?

    "anything that provokes thinking on the part of the readers is good reading.

    It's a pity the author can't write anything to provoke thinking by the author.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Mr. Anon
    "This has been discussed endlessly, even on this webzine."

    But, evidently, not understood. There is so little you guys understand. Your understanding of physics seems to be derived from comic books.

    The only use I ever had for a comic book, is for rolling-up and swatting pests like you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "The only use I ever had for a comic book, is for rolling-up and swatting pests like you."

    Too many big words in comic books?

    I noticed you didn't address my points above.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    ...Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.
     
    Hi, I asked you this before, but I'm pretty sure you never gave a straight answer.

    As I recall, in the days following the attacks of 9/11, the government put out a pretty amazing story, that the whole thing had been orchestrated from faroff Afghanistan, by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama Bin Laden.

    Could you outline what the strongest available evidence for that story is?

    If there is no evidence for the story, that's an answer too, but you really ought to answer the question, no?

    I did answer. I don’t care what you “think” I answered.

    I asked you this question before, but you never gave a straight answer: Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972? I suspect that if you answered truthfully – with your actual opinion – you would alienate a lot of your fans, and that’s why you refuse to answer such a simple, straight-forward question.

    While we’re at it: Is the Earth flat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I did answer.
     
    Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?

    My impression was that I had previously posed (I think on more than one occasion) the most simple straightforward question. I asked you to outline the best available evidence that the attacks were orchestrated by Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, from Afghanistan. And I was pretty certain that you had simply not answered.

    Well, I try to give people maximal benefit of the doubt and assume they are not lying. But still, there are limits. If you did previously provide an answer to the question, there is an electronic record of it. Please provide a link.

    Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972?
     
    As I recall, this is how you answered the question the last time, by posing the above irrelevant question.

    We're discussing 9/11, aren't we? What is the best available evidence for the government story? You say you previously answered. Well, again, provide the link.
    , @Authenticjazzman
    " While we're at it: Is the earth flat".

    At the point in time or the era in which the earthly dwellers assumed/believed it was flat, it was flat.

    All of reality is based upon agreement and beliefs.

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    And mass-murderering millionaires with everything to lose are in the habit of giving full and free confessions, completely unprompted, during television interviews. Aren’t they?
     
    Well, nobody said anything about what people are in the habit of doing. It seems like the guy slipped up. He said they "pulled" the building which could only mean that it was pre-rigged for demolition beforehand. However, the official story was that the building imploded in a perfectly symmetrical manner from undirected fires -- which is an impossibility.

    In any case, what is your explanation of the BBC reporting the collapse of the building before it happened? Do you really think there is nothing at all odd about that?

    “He said they “pulled” the building which could only mean that it was pre-rigged for demolition beforehand.”

    I’d say you were deluded, as it fits with the tone of everything you’ve written, except that clearly you must know better. He did not say they “pulled the building”. You’re lying.

    The fixation on particular words is a bizarre kind of word-magic that you clowns seem to believe in. You are not sceptics. You are not “researchers”. You are shamans in an obscure cult.

    “In any case, what is your explanation of the BBC reporting the collapse of the building before it happened? Do you really think there is nothing at all odd about that?”

    I just explained what I thought it meant. Do I think it odd that a journalist misinterpereted a note handed to them? Do I think it odd that a journalist reported something that was not true? No. Do you think journalists get everything right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Do I think it odd that a journalist misinterpereted a note handed to them?
     
    Just to be clear: is this the official explanation from the BBC as to why they reported the event before it happened? Or is this just something that you made up?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands
    The only use I ever had for a comic book, is for rolling-up and swatting pests like you.

    “The only use I ever had for a comic book, is for rolling-up and swatting pests like you.”

    Too many big words in comic books?

    I noticed you didn’t address my points above.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Who am I going to believe?

    You...

    ... or my lying eyes.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNy7AzSVAU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Mr. Anon says:
    @Bruce Marshall
    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers....whose afraid of saying the truth?!

    So here is today's litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.

    I have, having informed Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) that his Co-Sponsorship of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Stop Arming Terrorists Act, is great, but that by its own definition such an act I identifying not only a felony, but more importantly an act of Treason, and that by not addressing this felony and treason, he is being warned that he is party to such Treason as Misprision of Treason.

    This challenge needs to be addressed, by competent news outlets, and more importantly citizens willing to make the challenge of their elected servants whose sole duty above all other considerations is to uphold the Constitution. Remind them that it may be their own family that may be killed in a plane taken down by a Man-Pa that Congress and Obama gave to terrorists.

    We have Professor Francis Boyle, who wrote the Articles of Impeachment against GHW Bush by Rep. Henry Gonzales willing to write up Impeachment Papers on Obama right now, while Congress is technically still in Session, and World War III still smoldering.

    So act.

    Bruce Marshall
    Rochester, Vermont

    You don’t seem to understand people like Revusky. He doesn’t want political change. He wants to be a high-priest in a mystery-cult, in which only he and a few select others are privy to the true, secret knowledge. Only his secret version of history is real history. Everything that the rest of you believe is illusion and falsehood. If he has to make up a bunch of ridiculous twaddle to effect this, then he is cool with that.

    In short – he wants to be a gate-keeper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruce Marshall
    Thanks....that is quite unfortunate concerning Mr. Revusky it would seem then that he is perhaps a follower of Leo Strauss. Note my response to him below, number 157.
    , @Anon
    "He wants to be a high-priest in a mystery-cult, in which only he and a few select others are privy to the true, secret knowledge."

    More like the sasquatch hunters. Ever watch the show on animal planet, where the good ole hillbillies gather at dusk and into the night looking for bigfoot, feeding off of each other's imagined reinforcements?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Mr. Anon
    "Because Gregory Cochran is a bit of an ass that has pissed off Mr. Unz is probably why."

    But Cochran, who is a smart guy, is clearly a lot smarter than Revusky, who is a bloviating dullard.

    Evidently in his wisdom, Dr. Cochran decided also to forsake this particular income stream because of his differences with Mr. Unz. Why are we to argue with his intellect?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Evidently in his wisdom, Dr. Cochran decided also to forsake this particular income stream because of his differences with Mr. Unz.
     
    I guess this could be a basic question for a BDQ test. (Bullshit Detection Quotient)

    A. Cochran kept receiving checks from Unz but Cochran stopped cashing the checks because Unz had pissed him off.

    B. Unz stopped sending the checks to Cochran because Cochran had pissed him off.

    Which of the above two statements would one identify as BULLSHIT?

    Of course, the other question is why we're discussing this. Oh, I remember... because somebody was making some connection between Unz not publishing anything by Cochran yet publishing my articles. There is apparently some relationship between the two things. I myself don't understand what the relationship is, but that is just further proof of what an imbecile I am.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Mr. Anon says:
    @Astuteobservor II
    Mr. Revusky gets alot points for being active in the comments section.

    Don't agree with all parts of the article but still a good read. anything that provokes thinking on the part of the readers is good reading :)

    “Mr. Revusky gets alot points for being active in the comments section.

    After you’ve written 12,000 words of obscure squid ink, what’re a few more?

    “anything that provokes thinking on the part of the readers is good reading.

    It’s a pity the author can’t write anything to provoke thinking by the author.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Mr. Anon
    I did answer. I don't care what you "think" I answered.

    I asked you this question before, but you never gave a straight answer: Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972? I suspect that if you answered truthfully - with your actual opinion - you would alienate a lot of your fans, and that's why you refuse to answer such a simple, straight-forward question.

    While we're at it: Is the Earth flat?

    I did answer.

    Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?

    My impression was that I had previously posed (I think on more than one occasion) the most simple straightforward question. I asked you to outline the best available evidence that the attacks were orchestrated by Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, from Afghanistan. And I was pretty certain that you had simply not answered.

    Well, I try to give people maximal benefit of the doubt and assume they are not lying. But still, there are limits. If you did previously provide an answer to the question, there is an electronic record of it. Please provide a link.

    Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972?

    As I recall, this is how you answered the question the last time, by posing the above irrelevant question.

    We’re discussing 9/11, aren’t we? What is the best available evidence for the government story? You say you previously answered. Well, again, provide the link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?"

    I'm not your lackey. Look it up yourself.

    "As I recall, this is how you answered the question the last time, by posing the above irrelevant question. We’re discussing 9/11, aren’t we?"

    It isn't irrelevant. If we didn't land a man on the Moon, that would be a massive government conspiracy too, wouldn't it? You seem to think that everything is the result of hidden forces. You have no opinion on that issue? I think you do. And I think you know that voicing it would make a lot of people tune you out permanently. It locates your place on the crank scale, and I'm betting you come in at a 10.

    And, by the way, for the record, you have implied here, not only that were no terrorists and no victims on the airplanes, but that their were no airplanes at all.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Daniel Chieh
    Evidently in his wisdom, Dr. Cochran decided also to forsake this particular income stream because of his differences with Mr. Unz. Why are we to argue with his intellect?

    Evidently in his wisdom, Dr. Cochran decided also to forsake this particular income stream because of his differences with Mr. Unz.

    I guess this could be a basic question for a BDQ test. (Bullshit Detection Quotient)

    A. Cochran kept receiving checks from Unz but Cochran stopped cashing the checks because Unz had pissed him off.

    B. Unz stopped sending the checks to Cochran because Cochran had pissed him off.

    Which of the above two statements would one identify as BULLSHIT?

    Of course, the other question is why we’re discussing this. Oh, I remember… because somebody was making some connection between Unz not publishing anything by Cochran yet publishing my articles. There is apparently some relationship between the two things. I myself don’t understand what the relationship is, but that is just further proof of what an imbecile I am.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Presumably Mr. Chieh is being sarcastic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Jonathan Revusky

    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!
     
    Uhh, all of them are afraid of telling the truth -- at least about the key third rail issues. That's precisely what makes them gatekeepers. There is a set of things they will never tell the truth about. In my view, that's not really a left/right issue.

    So here is today’s litmus, not 9/11 but rather who is willing to come right out and call Obama a Traitor per his arming of terrorists.
     
    I hope this doesn't come across as too dismissive or anything, but for me, the problem with what you're saying is that it's based on their framing of the question. Terrorists, shmerrorists.... Of course the exact same people can be "terrorists" or they're "freedom fighters" depending on shifting agendas. So the fact that the "freedom fighters" that the government is supporting today were labeled "terrorists" yesterday... well, that's worth pointing out, I suppose, but just like all the bullshit and deceptions are worth calling out, but I don't see it as a sine qua non either frankly.

    To be brutally honest, for me, this framing that Obama specifically is a "traitor" because Obama is supporting the "freedom fighters" who are really "terrorists", I find the whole thing pretty hard to get excited about. Not just because Obama is a lame duck anyway. The thing is that it's not Obama himself doing these things. He's mostly just a puppet. Supporting whatever faction in ME politics, this is Deep State stuff. Talking as if this is all done by whatever front-man (Obama in this case) they've put in there -- really, I feel it's a very superficial analysis that doesn't really get very far.

    Thanks for the reply!

    First you have proven once again that I need to better proofread my posts, for “whose” should have been “those” in my line

    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!

    Of those afraid of telling the truth, I find your reply to the issue of “Obama’s Treason” reeks of an obfuscating fear that exactly resonates with the type of garbage that a Scahill or any one of the other 9/11 gatekeepers might blather.

    Yes of course Obama is a puppet, as I was a contributing author to Webster Tarpley’s pre-nomination book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, that correctly identified Obama the Wall Street puppet, spawn of the Weather Underground and protege of Brzezinski, where we correctly stated that Obama would lead us to war against Russia and civil unrest in the U.S, so I am well aware of how this works. We did it before anyone else, in an emergency book whose mission was to stop his being elected.

    While you may think that it is a superficial analysis to call Obama a terrorist, the fact of the matter is that he is a terrorist, a warmonger with a t rack record, and thus a potential thermonuclear suicide bomber, as he is killer who prides himself on his killing acumen, the man who has laid to waste Libya, Syria, overthrew the legitimate government of the Ukraine and other nations utilizing privatized CIA “Color Revolution” and brute force when that fails, in order to further hegemony for the financial oligarchy. World War III is smoldering, with Obama putting logs on the fire for a full conflagration as the “Mau Mau” agent he is.

    So did you ever call for the impeachment of Obama? I would bet not. Why you probably did not even support the move to impeach Bush and Cheney, and would have run for the hills if
    asked to sign a document like the Kennebunkport Warning.

    The issue is that sometimes simple action based is more important than long winded analysis that ultimately does nothing.

    In the present circumstances, Obama is more than just a “puppet” which is an excuse, he is President. To use the excuse that he is a puppet, to not make him responsible for his crimes, beginning with honestly identifying what those crimes are, is to treaty Barack like
    a ‘Boy’, which is exactly why he was chosen and groomed by a faction of the “Deep State” to be immune from such actions by citizens and elected officials, of actually giving him the honor of being treated like a “Man” which means identifying his crimes and seeking action to protect ourselves from such a kidnappper and murderer who is holding the entire world hostage, perpetuating the situation with selected murders for everyone to watch and become entranced and unable to act, but to just call him a puppet of the deep state, but not to act.

    Thus the tragedy of Obama, his being but a “Boy”, is our tragedy, the audience the observers of
    this tragedy, and the tragic victims ourselves, who listen to that chorus who wants to say that we can do nothing, we can not make assertions of what is plain and obvious. To laugh at those of us willing to say that this is Misprision of Treason and Felony to our Congressional Representatives, to do their job, no matter if it might cost their life, for that is the same description they are sending the young, without work, to lose life and limb what are lies.

    To say “Terrorists, shmerrorists” is frankly indicative of an attitude of sophistry that keeps the lies going and going. Why the “Deep State” really loves you!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I listened to some pre-Obama talks by Tarpley and I must agree that he had surprisingly good grip on what was going on and what to expect from Obama administration.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    I find your reply to the issue of “Obama’s Treason” reeks of an obfuscating fear that exactly resonates with the type of garbage that a Scahill or any one of the other 9/11 gatekeepers might blather.
     
    Well, I think you're completely misreading me, Bruce. In my last note to you, I just gave you my honest reaction to what you were saying. There's no "obfuscating fear" there on my part. I'm really just telling you what I think. It just seems weird to me. You're talking about impeaching Obama when there are 3 weeks left to his presidency anyway. But let's say there were 3 years left instead of 3 weeks. If you impeach Obama, what do you get? You get Joe Biden, right? Why would that be any better? I suppose it wouldn't be any worse either, but... it's just the same thing. There's no reason to think that this would cause any change in U.S. government policy. (Or maybe I'm wrong and there is, but you'd have to explain it to me because I just don't get it.)

    My issue with the "Obama's Treason" is not that I care to defend Obama particularly. It's that, to my way of looking at things, you are attributing far too much agency to the person of Barack Obama. In the terms of my essay, it's like you still believe too much in DM, so, since Obama is the "democratically" elected POTUS, we are supposed to believe that he's really the guy running things.

    Yes of course Obama is a puppet, as I was a contributing author to Webster Tarpley’s pre-nomination book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, that correctly identified Obama the Wall Street puppet,
     
    Yes, I read the book actually, but I think I read it later, like in 2011 or so. It was around when I discovered Webster Tarpley and started reading a lot of his different works. I have a pretty good opinion of Tarpley. I think I vaguely recognized your name. I'm perfectly happy that you are here, but I'm a bit perplexed at how personally you are taking what I am saying.

    So did you ever call for the impeachment of Obama? I would bet not.
     
    No, I never did. But what difference does that make? It's flattering that you are talking to me like I actually am an important person and it matters what I "call for". To me, what you are saying seems based on the idea that if you can impeach Obama, that you are going to get different policies. Are you talking about impeaching Obama AND Biden? Or just Obama? If all you get is Biden instead of Obama... But it's something that is not going to happen anyway, so again...

    Bruce, I'm sure you're a good guy, a patriot, and you mean well, but I think it's misguided to get agitated at me the way you are. Well, I guess you're looking at me as a cynic, and that could be true. From my point of view, you are saying things that seem really naive. You're calling on the people in congress to impeach Obama, except the Congress critters are all bought and paid for by whatever special interests as well. You're trying to convince a bunch of puppets on a string to impeach the head puppet on a string.

    Well, I am writing an answer because I feel you should get a reply, but I suddenly think that I'm probably just antagonizing you further. I really am trying to look at this question from your point of view, but kind of failing to get it. Maybe you should also try to understand my perspective that I am outlining.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Mr. Anon
    "He said they “pulled” the building which could only mean that it was pre-rigged for demolition beforehand."

    I'd say you were deluded, as it fits with the tone of everything you've written, except that clearly you must know better. He did not say they "pulled the building". You're lying.

    The fixation on particular words is a bizarre kind of word-magic that you clowns seem to believe in. You are not sceptics. You are not "researchers". You are shamans in an obscure cult.

    "In any case, what is your explanation of the BBC reporting the collapse of the building before it happened? Do you really think there is nothing at all odd about that?"

    I just explained what I thought it meant. Do I think it odd that a journalist misinterpereted a note handed to them? Do I think it odd that a journalist reported something that was not true? No. Do you think journalists get everything right?

    Do I think it odd that a journalist misinterpereted a note handed to them?

    Just to be clear: is this the official explanation from the BBC as to why they reported the event before it happened? Or is this just something that you made up?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    You seem to think that everything is either "official" or it is not. You talk about the planes hitting the buildings being part of the "official" story. No, the planes hitting the buildings are historical events witnessed by thousands of people. I don't subscribe to your strange, idiosyncratic use of language.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Authenticjazzman
    " The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind"

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my "Misdeeds" of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.

    It puzzles me extremely to now hear that a guy such as myself, an innocuous jazz performer, who has only been dedicated to finally blowing the perfect solo, which has not yet happened even after sixty years of trying, it puzzles me now at this stage of the game to find out that I am guilty of horrendous "Misdeeds" of which I have no knowledge whatsoever, unless trying to acomplish a "Perfect" solo, as jazz player can be construed as a "Misdeed".

    Aside from my atheist mind-set, I guess considering oneself ( myself) as a conservative and having voted for DT would perhaps afford me a lesser residence in limbo subsequent to my departure form this lunatic planet, you reckon?

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my “Misdeeds” of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.

    Hey, Mr. Certified Genius man, when you hear the sentence: “The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor” does that for you mean that all the Japanese participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor?

    I suppose it must mean that, because when you hear “Atheists did X and atheists did Y” you take it to mean that you personally did those things. (Even things that happened before you were born, I suppose…)

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society

    If you really were such a genius, you wouldn’t feel such a need to proclaim it. As the Bard said: “The lady doth protest too much.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " If you really were such a genius", you wouldn't feel such a need to proclaim it".

    So now you are "Knowing" what I should feel or should not feel, which indicates that you have somehow taken over or invaded my mind and you are aware of all of my motivations and ideals.

    How about this : I will do, or say what I please and I do not require your approval therefore.

    And regarding my "mensa" membership, well I still have somewhere in my personal belongings, the gold-embossed acceptance certificate dated 1973, (I can't recall the precise date) and If you have any bones to pick with the Mensa society regarding such, I would advise you to contact them and inform them that they have been awarding membership to undeserving individuals according to your parameters, and that they therefore should alter their membership requirements to conform to your standards.

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Ron Unz says:

    I happened to notice that Gregory Cochran had unexpectedly become a repeated point of discussion in this thread. So here’s the story, which I’d previously provided:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692032

    As I said, I’d probably be willing to feature Cochran’s writing in my webzine…just so long as he provides me a direct personal apology for his past misbehavior. So the ball is completely in his court, and any Cochran fans should be approaching him, not me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I happened to notice that Gregory Cochran had unexpectedly become a repeated point of discussion in this thread.
     
    Well, it's just because there was the one Gregory Cochran fanboy who was doing Lloyd Bentsen to my Dan Quayle, I guess. Remember that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI

    "I knew Greg Cochran. Greg Cochran was a friend of mine. I performed oral sex on Greg Cochran. You sir, are no Greg Cochran."


    Dang, he really put me in my place. There I was thinking I was Greg Cochran and he cruelly shattered all my illusions...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Mr. Anon
    "That’s it. I think Silverstein is talking about pulling the firemen from the building,"

    No, that can't be right. No, he must be admitting on television, months after the fact, that he was a party to a vast and sinister conspiracy that murdered thousands of people. Because that's what conspirators always do. That's the only possible rational explanation for his choice of words.

    No, that can’t be right. No, he must be admitting on television, months after the fact, that he was a party to a vast and sinister conspiracy that murdered thousands of people. Because that’s what conspirators always do. That’s the only possible rational explanation for his choice of words.

    No. This video was done several years after 9/11. People were beginning to ask, ‘What about building 7′? So he had to try and come up with some kind of explanation as to why it went down. He was forced to concede our–I’m a truther–main point: namely, that WTC 7 could only have been brought down by controlled demo, since no plane had ever struck it. No one was buying the flying-débris theory anymore. He just had to invent some cock-and-bull story to explain why; nobody’s buying the new theory either. No demo-expert is going to volunteer to set up a building for CD while it’s on fire!

    So, we have now established that at least one of the 3 buildings that went down that day had to have been rigged for CD before 9/11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "No. This video was done several years after 9/11. People were beginning to ask, ‘What about building 7′? So he had to try and come up with some kind of explanation as to why it went down."

    That is ridiculous. You mean he was insinuating that they rigged up demolition charges in a burning building on 9/11? When? During lunchtime? That is ludicrous. The point is, for Silverstein to admit that the building was "pulled" in the sense you guys use the term, would be for him to admit guilt in an enormous crime. He wasn't doing that. It is spergy beyond belief to suggest that he was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Mr. Anon
    "The only use I ever had for a comic book, is for rolling-up and swatting pests like you."

    Too many big words in comic books?

    I noticed you didn't address my points above.

    Who am I going to believe?

    You…

    … or my lying eyes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Who am I going to believe?"

    Yes, the building fell down. That's the way buildings fall. You seem to think this is remarkable somehow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Rurik says:

    A masterful pièce de résistance in the spirit of Veritas and sanity JR,

    Kudos to you, and very well done!

    I’ve come to this party late, and haven’t read all the comments, but I shall peruse them for edification or grins, as the case may be.

    we’re all basically primates, yes. Even if so much more. And we’re understandable and tweakable at the basic level. Very smart behaviorist types have been studying us and learning exactly how to create narratives that act as our reality/matrix, (or the water to the fish in your analogy), for their own respective and myriad agendas.

    Consumerism, and materialism and the mantras du jour, like ARRF. They’re all foisted by the creators of popular culture who work for the Oligarchs, (cultural elites and entrenched PTB) who own the West and its institutions. Bankers mostly, and yes, mostly Jews.

    It suits them to have the populace acting as brain****** zombies parroting the memes that are carefully and systematically programmed into their subconsciences with scientific precision.

    They know what they’re doing.

    It’s not for nothing that Americans hail the great ‘good war’ defeat of ‘Nazi’ aggressors by the “greatest generation’, only to act exactly as ‘Nazis’ vis-a-vis Palestine (Iraq/Libya/Syria/Ukraine/etc..). All they have to do is use their media to carefully program the lemmingry and ‘poof’ they’ll act and believe in exactly (almost) the way they’re programmed to. It’s all very scientific.

    The key to un-programming the sheople is owning the media and other institutions like public “education” and the universities, etc.. And for that- you need to control the money- and for that- you need to control the central bank(s). There’s really no mystery why all the narratives and society-destroying mantras of the West are intended to bolster Israel while simultaneously destroying Western civilization and its people. It’s because ((they)) control the levers of our culture and institutions and media. So people dance to their tune, whether it be gay marriage or denigration of religion and ancient traditions.

    If you hold the $trings, the puppets will dance to your whims.

    your work here Jonathan is sublime and far reaching. It is insightful (as usual), and a pleasure to read.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "piece de resistance", "veritas", "du jour" "sublime", ain't you just writin' spiffy new friench wurds!

    ARRF! ARRF! ARRF!!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Rurik says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "Silverstein “We decided to pull the building” (WTC7)"

    You're wrong. He didn't say "pull the building". He said "pull it". Look it up. Your quotes aren't even quotes.

    "What other interpretation do you have to offer?"

    Pull the fire crews?

    Or do you think that multi-millionaires are in the habit of confessing to mass murder on PBS?

    Or do you think that multi-millionaires are in the habit of confessing to mass murder on PBS?

    wasn’t Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?

    didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?

    if I had to pick, based on everything I know about the two men, in my opinion, Lucky Larry is seven billion times more likely to have perpetrated the crime than that man with a laptop and a cell phone in a cave thousands of miles away, who would have very little reason for wanting the US to slaughter and maim untold millions of Muslims the world over.

    But for Lucky Larry, who’s very good friends with (“it’s very good”) Bibi, they might consider such a crime a pretext to get Americans to destroy countries that Israel considers inconvenient. See?

    And Lucky Larry gets several billion dollars of insurance money. (perhaps the most audacious case of ‘Jewish lightning’ ever!) Such a deal!

    who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?

    who had more friends in high places, like Zionists and duel citizens at the Pentagon and CIA and at the highest levels of the Bush administration to shut down NORAD and SAC? Osama, or Lucky?

    who had more friends in the media?

    who had more friends in the intelligence communities?

    who had more means?

    who is more likely to be a murderous, lowlife POS who would cynically conspire to slaughter Americans out of greed and global supremacist agendas in order to get richer and foment Eternal Wars for Israel?

    those are just a few of the questions off the top of my head, for why I’d be more likely to figure it was more likely Lucky Larry who concocted a plan to get insurance cash, than Osama to strike at the Great Satan, who would no doubt rain down death and misery upon his people.

    at least in the context of a question of the character of the two men

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "wasn’t Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?"

    Yes, in Afghanistan. Slightly different context.

    "didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?"

    He didn't view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack - a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility

    "who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?"

    There were no explosives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I did answer.
     
    Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?

    My impression was that I had previously posed (I think on more than one occasion) the most simple straightforward question. I asked you to outline the best available evidence that the attacks were orchestrated by Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, from Afghanistan. And I was pretty certain that you had simply not answered.

    Well, I try to give people maximal benefit of the doubt and assume they are not lying. But still, there are limits. If you did previously provide an answer to the question, there is an electronic record of it. Please provide a link.

    Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972?
     
    As I recall, this is how you answered the question the last time, by posing the above irrelevant question.

    We're discussing 9/11, aren't we? What is the best available evidence for the government story? You say you previously answered. Well, again, provide the link.

    “Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?”

    I’m not your lackey. Look it up yourself.

    “As I recall, this is how you answered the question the last time, by posing the above irrelevant question. We’re discussing 9/11, aren’t we?”

    It isn’t irrelevant. If we didn’t land a man on the Moon, that would be a massive government conspiracy too, wouldn’t it? You seem to think that everything is the result of hidden forces. You have no opinion on that issue? I think you do. And I think you know that voicing it would make a lot of people tune you out permanently. It locates your place on the crank scale, and I’m betting you come in at a 10.

    And, by the way, for the record, you have implied here, not only that were no terrorists and no victims on the airplanes, but that their were no airplanes at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    “Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?”

    I’m not your lackey. Look it up yourself.
     
    Uhh, how can I look up something that doesn't exist? Everybody here including you knows that you were lying your ass off when you said you had answered the question. I was simply calling your bluff when I asked you to provide the link.

    Well, everybody who has interacted with you surely knows that you're a chronic liar. At one point, you said you had read a lot of the conspiracist literature and it was all bullshit. I asked you to name some of the books you had read and you refused to answer. Because you were lying there too... you haven't read anything. I knew you had never read any books on any of these topics. because you never bring any real knowledge into any discussion. You don't really know anything. Your whole position is the classic shit eater position that whatever it is must be true because it's the official story.

    This is a key point in this very article. You ask a religious fanatic for proof of some story that's in the Bible and the answer is that the story is in the Bible. You ask a shit eater like you for the proof of some fantastical story like what the government says happened on 9/11. And the person just says it's the official story. Claims it's a "fact". That's what it always comes down to.

    It isn’t irrelevant.
     
    Well, this is what you always do when you're getting cornered. You throw the "Hail Mary" pass of starting to talk about the Moon landings.

    Why should I switch from discussing 9/11 with you, a subject you know fuck-all about, to discussing the Moon landings, another topic you surely know fuck-all about.

    Hey, why don't we discuss something you definitely do know something about? Like uhhh.... being a LYING TROLL SCUMBAG....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands
    Who am I going to believe?

    You...

    ... or my lying eyes.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNy7AzSVAU

    “Who am I going to believe?”

    Yes, the building fell down. That’s the way buildings fall. You seem to think this is remarkable somehow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    You should stick to gabbing about Roman antiquity, when it comes to wet work you seem a tad naive...

    ...Or perhaps "knave " is more descriptive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Mr. Anon says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    No, that can’t be right. No, he must be admitting on television, months after the fact, that he was a party to a vast and sinister conspiracy that murdered thousands of people. Because that’s what conspirators always do. That’s the only possible rational explanation for his choice of words.
     
    No. This video was done several years after 9/11. People were beginning to ask, 'What about building 7'? So he had to try and come up with some kind of explanation as to why it went down. He was forced to concede our--I'm a truther--main point: namely, that WTC 7 could only have been brought down by controlled demo, since no plane had ever struck it. No one was buying the flying-débris theory anymore. He just had to invent some cock-and-bull story to explain why; nobody's buying the new theory either. No demo-expert is going to volunteer to set up a building for CD while it's on fire!

    So, we have now established that at least one of the 3 buildings that went down that day had to have been rigged for CD before 9/11.

    “No. This video was done several years after 9/11. People were beginning to ask, ‘What about building 7′? So he had to try and come up with some kind of explanation as to why it went down.”

    That is ridiculous. You mean he was insinuating that they rigged up demolition charges in a burning building on 9/11? When? During lunchtime? That is ludicrous. The point is, for Silverstein to admit that the building was “pulled” in the sense you guys use the term, would be for him to admit guilt in an enormous crime. He wasn’t doing that. It is spergy beyond belief to suggest that he was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Do I think it odd that a journalist misinterpereted a note handed to them?
     
    Just to be clear: is this the official explanation from the BBC as to why they reported the event before it happened? Or is this just something that you made up?

    You seem to think that everything is either “official” or it is not. You talk about the planes hitting the buildings being part of the “official” story. No, the planes hitting the buildings are historical events witnessed by thousands of people. I don’t subscribe to your strange, idiosyncratic use of language.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Mr. Anon
    "Who am I going to believe?"

    Yes, the building fell down. That's the way buildings fall. You seem to think this is remarkable somehow.

    You should stick to gabbing about Roman antiquity, when it comes to wet work you seem a tad naive…

    …Or perhaps “knave ” is more descriptive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "You should stick to gabbing about Roman antiquity, when it comes to wet work you seem a tad naive…"

    Oh, and you're an expert? Where did you learn the term "wet work" - from a Steven Seagal movie? A lot of posers in the world of fringe conspiracy theories.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Mr. Anon
    You don't seem to understand people like Revusky. He doesn't want political change. He wants to be a high-priest in a mystery-cult, in which only he and a few select others are privy to the true, secret knowledge. Only his secret version of history is real history. Everything that the rest of you believe is illusion and falsehood. If he has to make up a bunch of ridiculous twaddle to effect this, then he is cool with that.

    In short - he wants to be a gate-keeper.

    Thanks….that is quite unfortunate concerning Mr. Revusky it would seem then that he is perhaps a follower of Leo Strauss. Note my response to him below, number 157.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rurik
    A masterful pièce de résistance in the spirit of Veritas and sanity JR,

    Kudos to you, and very well done!

    I've come to this party late, and haven't read all the comments, but I shall peruse them for edification or grins, as the case may be.

    we're all basically primates, yes. Even if so much more. And we're understandable and tweakable at the basic level. Very smart behaviorist types have been studying us and learning exactly how to create narratives that act as our reality/matrix, (or the water to the fish in your analogy), for their own respective and myriad agendas.

    Consumerism, and materialism and the mantras du jour, like ARRF. They're all foisted by the creators of popular culture who work for the Oligarchs, (cultural elites and entrenched PTB) who own the West and its institutions. Bankers mostly, and yes, mostly Jews.

    It suits them to have the populace acting as brain****** zombies parroting the memes that are carefully and systematically programmed into their subconsciences with scientific precision.

    They know what they're doing.

    It's not for nothing that Americans hail the great 'good war' defeat of 'Nazi' aggressors by the "greatest generation', only to act exactly as 'Nazis' vis-a-vis Palestine (Iraq/Libya/Syria/Ukraine/etc..). All they have to do is use their media to carefully program the lemmingry and 'poof' they'll act and believe in exactly (almost) the way they're programmed to. It's all very scientific.

    The key to un-programming the sheople is owning the media and other institutions like public "education" and the universities, etc.. And for that- you need to control the money- and for that- you need to control the central bank(s). There's really no mystery why all the narratives and society-destroying mantras of the West are intended to bolster Israel while simultaneously destroying Western civilization and its people. It's because ((they)) control the levers of our culture and institutions and media. So people dance to their tune, whether it be gay marriage or denigration of religion and ancient traditions.

    If you hold the $trings, the puppets will dance to your whims.

    your work here Jonathan is sublime and far reaching. It is insightful (as usual), and a pleasure to read.

    “piece de resistance”, “veritas”, “du jour” “sublime”, ain’t you just writin’ spiffy new friench wurds!

    ARRF! ARRF! ARRF!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    spiffy new friench wurds!
     
    only two of those are French per se, and all of them are very much part and parcel of the Americana lexicona.

    k?

    and my girlfriend is French, so ..

    dufus

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mr. Anon
    You don't seem to understand people like Revusky. He doesn't want political change. He wants to be a high-priest in a mystery-cult, in which only he and a few select others are privy to the true, secret knowledge. Only his secret version of history is real history. Everything that the rest of you believe is illusion and falsehood. If he has to make up a bunch of ridiculous twaddle to effect this, then he is cool with that.

    In short - he wants to be a gate-keeper.

    He wants to be a high-priest in a mystery-cult, in which only he and a few select others are privy to the true, secret knowledge.”

    More like the sasquatch hunters. Ever watch the show on animal planet, where the good ole hillbillies gather at dusk and into the night looking for bigfoot, feeding off of each other’s imagined reinforcements?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Rurik says:
    @Anon
    "piece de resistance", "veritas", "du jour" "sublime", ain't you just writin' spiffy new friench wurds!

    ARRF! ARRF! ARRF!!

    spiffy new friench wurds!

    only two of those are French per se, and all of them are very much part and parcel of the Americana lexicona.

    k?

    and my girlfriend is French, so ..

    dufus

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Jonathan Revusky

    Okay so would you please afford me, a confirmed atheist,a list of my “Misdeeds” of which I am, inspite of my seventysix years on planet mirth, totally unaware.
     
    Hey, Mr. Certified Genius man, when you hear the sentence: "The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor" does that for you mean that all the Japanese participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor?

    I suppose it must mean that, because when you hear "Atheists did X and atheists did Y" you take it to mean that you personally did those things. (Even things that happened before you were born, I suppose...)

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society
     
    If you really were such a genius, you wouldn't feel such a need to proclaim it. As the Bard said: "The lady doth protest too much."

    ” If you really were such a genius”, you wouldn’t feel such a need to proclaim it”.

    So now you are “Knowing” what I should feel or should not feel, which indicates that you have somehow taken over or invaded my mind and you are aware of all of my motivations and ideals.

    How about this : I will do, or say what I please and I do not require your approval therefore.

    And regarding my “mensa” membership, well I still have somewhere in my personal belongings, the gold-embossed acceptance certificate dated 1973, (I can’t recall the precise date) and If you have any bones to pick with the Mensa society regarding such, I would advise you to contact them and inform them that they have been awarding membership to undeserving individuals according to your parameters, and that they therefore should alter their membership requirements to conform to your standards.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    How about this : I will do, or say what I please and I do not require your approval therefore.
     
    Look, I never told you what to do or not to do. My view is that what you do is in your nature so for me to ask you to stop would be like asking a swine to stop wallowing in its own excrement.

    My preference would simply be for you to do what you do elsewhere because it is mentally unhygienic and revolting. Why don't you go somewhere else and do it? Why must you do it here? To what do I owe the honor?

    In principle, the purpose of the comments section is to discuss the article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you haven't even read the article. To be fair it's not just you. There are trolls here who say proudly that they haven't read the article that they are commenting under.

    There are countless articles on the net that I didn't read and I don't write comments under them saying proudly that (a) I didn't read the article AND (b) that the article is shit.

    And regarding my “mensa” membership, well I still have somewhere in my personal belongings, the gold-embossed acceptance certificate dated 1973,
     
    Uhh, yeah, and I've got a platinum-embossed certificate that commemorates when I got my first piece of tail.

    Dude, you are so pathetic. If you were at all clever in any real sense, you would at least know that NOBODY gives a shit!

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years
     
    NOBODY CARES!!! GO GET A LIFE!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Mr. Anon
    I did answer. I don't care what you "think" I answered.

    I asked you this question before, but you never gave a straight answer: Did America land men on the moon between the years 1969-1972? I suspect that if you answered truthfully - with your actual opinion - you would alienate a lot of your fans, and that's why you refuse to answer such a simple, straight-forward question.

    While we're at it: Is the Earth flat?

    ” While we’re at it: Is the earth flat”.

    At the point in time or the era in which the earthly dwellers assumed/believed it was flat, it was flat.

    All of reality is based upon agreement and beliefs.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” Society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands
    You should stick to gabbing about Roman antiquity, when it comes to wet work you seem a tad naive...

    ...Or perhaps "knave " is more descriptive.

    “You should stick to gabbing about Roman antiquity, when it comes to wet work you seem a tad naive…”

    Oh, and you’re an expert? Where did you learn the term “wet work” – from a Steven Seagal movie? A lot of posers in the world of fringe conspiracy theories.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands

    Oh, and you’re an expert? Where did you learn the term “wet work” – from a Steven Seagal movie?
     
    I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money.


    You think you're smart? You're not smart- you're a crafty, unprincipled fellow.

    All the world has seen the mask ripped from the face of the Deep State in this Presidential election.

    The CIA and State Dept. run amok openly supplying wahhabi terrorists with WMD. The Traitor that is still in office just approved the arming of these radicals with MANPADS.

    Yet, you can't see the connections between The Never Ending Fake War On Terror-[ and the terrorizing of citizens on 9/11 in order to manufacture consent] and The Deep State.

    That's why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Mr. Anon says:
    @Rurik

    Or do you think that multi-millionaires are in the habit of confessing to mass murder on PBS?
     
    wasn't Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?

    didn't the CIA provide a video of 'him' confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?

    if I had to pick, based on everything I know about the two men, in my opinion, Lucky Larry is seven billion times more likely to have perpetrated the crime than that man with a laptop and a cell phone in a cave thousands of miles away, who would have very little reason for wanting the US to slaughter and maim untold millions of Muslims the world over.

    But for Lucky Larry, who's very good friends with ("it's very good") Bibi, they might consider such a crime a pretext to get Americans to destroy countries that Israel considers inconvenient. See?

    And Lucky Larry gets several billion dollars of insurance money. (perhaps the most audacious case of 'Jewish lightning' ever!) Such a deal!

    who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?

    who had more friends in high places, like Zionists and duel citizens at the Pentagon and CIA and at the highest levels of the Bush administration to shut down NORAD and SAC? Osama, or Lucky?

    who had more friends in the media?

    who had more friends in the intelligence communities?

    who had more means?

    who is more likely to be a murderous, lowlife POS who would cynically conspire to slaughter Americans out of greed and global supremacist agendas in order to get richer and foment Eternal Wars for Israel?

    those are just a few of the questions off the top of my head, for why I'd be more likely to figure it was more likely Lucky Larry who concocted a plan to get insurance cash, than Osama to strike at the Great Satan, who would no doubt rain down death and misery upon his people.

    at least in the context of a question of the character of the two men

    “wasn’t Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?”

    Yes, in Afghanistan. Slightly different context.

    “didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?”

    He didn’t view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack – a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility

    “who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?”

    There were no explosives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "wet works" expression is a fairly recent adoption into English. It came from Russian but originally it is from Yiddish/Russian 19 century criminal slang.
    , @Rurik


    “didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?”
     
    He didn’t view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack – a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility
     
    ahh, but you see, he didn't claim responsibility. He said he had nothing to do with it. The fake video of 'him' confessing has been exhaustively debunked as a fake. Even the FBI admits it never had a shred of evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. Check it out..

    There were no explosives.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLJ1c9VVSH0
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. utu says:
    @Bruce Marshall
    Thanks for the reply!

    First you have proven once again that I need to better proofread my posts, for "whose" should have been "those" in my line


    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!
     
    Of those afraid of telling the truth, I find your reply to the issue of "Obama's Treason" reeks of an obfuscating fear that exactly resonates with the type of garbage that a Scahill or any one of the other 9/11 gatekeepers might blather.

    Yes of course Obama is a puppet, as I was a contributing author to Webster Tarpley's pre-nomination book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, that correctly identified Obama the Wall Street puppet, spawn of the Weather Underground and protege of Brzezinski, where we correctly stated that Obama would lead us to war against Russia and civil unrest in the U.S, so I am well aware of how this works. We did it before anyone else, in an emergency book whose mission was to stop his being elected.

    While you may think that it is a superficial analysis to call Obama a terrorist, the fact of the matter is that he is a terrorist, a warmonger with a t rack record, and thus a potential thermonuclear suicide bomber, as he is killer who prides himself on his killing acumen, the man who has laid to waste Libya, Syria, overthrew the legitimate government of the Ukraine and other nations utilizing privatized CIA "Color Revolution" and brute force when that fails, in order to further hegemony for the financial oligarchy. World War III is smoldering, with Obama putting logs on the fire for a full conflagration as the "Mau Mau" agent he is.

    So did you ever call for the impeachment of Obama? I would bet not. Why you probably did not even support the move to impeach Bush and Cheney, and would have run for the hills if
    asked to sign a document like the Kennebunkport Warning.

    The issue is that sometimes simple action based is more important than long winded analysis that ultimately does nothing.

    In the present circumstances, Obama is more than just a "puppet" which is an excuse, he is President. To use the excuse that he is a puppet, to not make him responsible for his crimes, beginning with honestly identifying what those crimes are, is to treaty Barack like
    a 'Boy', which is exactly why he was chosen and groomed by a faction of the "Deep State" to be immune from such actions by citizens and elected officials, of actually giving him the honor of being treated like a "Man" which means identifying his crimes and seeking action to protect ourselves from such a kidnappper and murderer who is holding the entire world hostage, perpetuating the situation with selected murders for everyone to watch and become entranced and unable to act, but to just call him a puppet of the deep state, but not to act.


    Thus the tragedy of Obama, his being but a "Boy", is our tragedy, the audience the observers of
    this tragedy, and the tragic victims ourselves, who listen to that chorus who wants to say that we can do nothing, we can not make assertions of what is plain and obvious. To laugh at those of us willing to say that this is Misprision of Treason and Felony to our Congressional Representatives, to do their job, no matter if it might cost their life, for that is the same description they are sending the young, without work, to lose life and limb what are lies.

    To say "Terrorists, shmerrorists" is frankly indicative of an attitude of sophistry that keeps the lies going and going. Why the "Deep State" really loves you!

    I listened to some pre-Obama talks by Tarpley and I must agree that he had surprisingly good grip on what was going on and what to expect from Obama administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. utu says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "wasn’t Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?"

    Yes, in Afghanistan. Slightly different context.

    "didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?"

    He didn't view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack - a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility

    "who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?"

    There were no explosives.

    “wet works” expression is a fairly recent adoption into English. It came from Russian but originally it is from Yiddish/Russian 19 century criminal slang.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Mr. Anon
    "You should stick to gabbing about Roman antiquity, when it comes to wet work you seem a tad naive…"

    Oh, and you're an expert? Where did you learn the term "wet work" - from a Steven Seagal movie? A lot of posers in the world of fringe conspiracy theories.

    Oh, and you’re an expert? Where did you learn the term “wet work” – from a Steven Seagal movie?

    I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money.

    You think you’re smart? You’re not smart- you’re a crafty, unprincipled fellow.

    All the world has seen the mask ripped from the face of the Deep State in this Presidential election.

    The CIA and State Dept. run amok openly supplying wahhabi terrorists with WMD. The Traitor that is still in office just approved the arming of these radicals with MANPADS.

    Yet, you can’t see the connections between The Never Ending Fake War On Terror-[ and the terrorizing of citizens on 9/11 in order to manufacture consent] and The Deep State.

    That’s why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Talha

    just approved the arming of these radicals with MANPADS
     
    I just saw that - these people (both the givers and receivers) are crazy! I cannot believe they are doing this.

    Peace.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money."

    But you didn't lean such a term by being a secret operative in some shadowy organization. Did you? You learned it from a movie.

    "That’s why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein."

    And..........of course. I must be jewish, mustn't I be? Because I disagree with you? Maybe you're a Jew - a hasbara troll, even. Can you prove you're not?

    BTW, I agree with a lot of what you say, foreign-policy wise. I don't like the things our government does in our name, but clearly not in our actual interest.

    But all of that doesn't mean that your crazy story about the World Trade Centers is true.

    There are things that are true, and things that aren't.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Bruce Marshall
    Thanks for the reply!

    First you have proven once again that I need to better proofread my posts, for "whose" should have been "those" in my line


    Yes the left gatekeepers or the right gatekeepers….whose afraid of saying the truth?!
     
    Of those afraid of telling the truth, I find your reply to the issue of "Obama's Treason" reeks of an obfuscating fear that exactly resonates with the type of garbage that a Scahill or any one of the other 9/11 gatekeepers might blather.

    Yes of course Obama is a puppet, as I was a contributing author to Webster Tarpley's pre-nomination book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, that correctly identified Obama the Wall Street puppet, spawn of the Weather Underground and protege of Brzezinski, where we correctly stated that Obama would lead us to war against Russia and civil unrest in the U.S, so I am well aware of how this works. We did it before anyone else, in an emergency book whose mission was to stop his being elected.

    While you may think that it is a superficial analysis to call Obama a terrorist, the fact of the matter is that he is a terrorist, a warmonger with a t rack record, and thus a potential thermonuclear suicide bomber, as he is killer who prides himself on his killing acumen, the man who has laid to waste Libya, Syria, overthrew the legitimate government of the Ukraine and other nations utilizing privatized CIA "Color Revolution" and brute force when that fails, in order to further hegemony for the financial oligarchy. World War III is smoldering, with Obama putting logs on the fire for a full conflagration as the "Mau Mau" agent he is.

    So did you ever call for the impeachment of Obama? I would bet not. Why you probably did not even support the move to impeach Bush and Cheney, and would have run for the hills if
    asked to sign a document like the Kennebunkport Warning.

    The issue is that sometimes simple action based is more important than long winded analysis that ultimately does nothing.

    In the present circumstances, Obama is more than just a "puppet" which is an excuse, he is President. To use the excuse that he is a puppet, to not make him responsible for his crimes, beginning with honestly identifying what those crimes are, is to treaty Barack like
    a 'Boy', which is exactly why he was chosen and groomed by a faction of the "Deep State" to be immune from such actions by citizens and elected officials, of actually giving him the honor of being treated like a "Man" which means identifying his crimes and seeking action to protect ourselves from such a kidnappper and murderer who is holding the entire world hostage, perpetuating the situation with selected murders for everyone to watch and become entranced and unable to act, but to just call him a puppet of the deep state, but not to act.


    Thus the tragedy of Obama, his being but a "Boy", is our tragedy, the audience the observers of
    this tragedy, and the tragic victims ourselves, who listen to that chorus who wants to say that we can do nothing, we can not make assertions of what is plain and obvious. To laugh at those of us willing to say that this is Misprision of Treason and Felony to our Congressional Representatives, to do their job, no matter if it might cost their life, for that is the same description they are sending the young, without work, to lose life and limb what are lies.

    To say "Terrorists, shmerrorists" is frankly indicative of an attitude of sophistry that keeps the lies going and going. Why the "Deep State" really loves you!

    I find your reply to the issue of “Obama’s Treason” reeks of an obfuscating fear that exactly resonates with the type of garbage that a Scahill or any one of the other 9/11 gatekeepers might blather.

    Well, I think you’re completely misreading me, Bruce. In my last note to you, I just gave you my honest reaction to what you were saying. There’s no “obfuscating fear” there on my part. I’m really just telling you what I think. It just seems weird to me. You’re talking about impeaching Obama when there are 3 weeks left to his presidency anyway. But let’s say there were 3 years left instead of 3 weeks. If you impeach Obama, what do you get? You get Joe Biden, right? Why would that be any better? I suppose it wouldn’t be any worse either, but… it’s just the same thing. There’s no reason to think that this would cause any change in U.S. government policy. (Or maybe I’m wrong and there is, but you’d have to explain it to me because I just don’t get it.)

    My issue with the “Obama’s Treason” is not that I care to defend Obama particularly. It’s that, to my way of looking at things, you are attributing far too much agency to the person of Barack Obama. In the terms of my essay, it’s like you still believe too much in DM, so, since Obama is the “democratically” elected POTUS, we are supposed to believe that he’s really the guy running things.

    Yes of course Obama is a puppet, as I was a contributing author to Webster Tarpley’s pre-nomination book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, that correctly identified Obama the Wall Street puppet,

    Yes, I read the book actually, but I think I read it later, like in 2011 or so. It was around when I discovered Webster Tarpley and started reading a lot of his different works. I have a pretty good opinion of Tarpley. I think I vaguely recognized your name. I’m perfectly happy that you are here, but I’m a bit perplexed at how personally you are taking what I am saying.

    So did you ever call for the impeachment of Obama? I would bet not.

    No, I never did. But what difference does that make? It’s flattering that you are talking to me like I actually am an important person and it matters what I “call for”. To me, what you are saying seems based on the idea that if you can impeach Obama, that you are going to get different policies. Are you talking about impeaching Obama AND Biden? Or just Obama? If all you get is Biden instead of Obama… But it’s something that is not going to happen anyway, so again…

    Bruce, I’m sure you’re a good guy, a patriot, and you mean well, but I think it’s misguided to get agitated at me the way you are. Well, I guess you’re looking at me as a cynic, and that could be true. From my point of view, you are saying things that seem really naive. You’re calling on the people in congress to impeach Obama, except the Congress critters are all bought and paid for by whatever special interests as well. You’re trying to convince a bunch of puppets on a string to impeach the head puppet on a string.

    Well, I am writing an answer because I feel you should get a reply, but I suddenly think that I’m probably just antagonizing you further. I really am trying to look at this question from your point of view, but kind of failing to get it. Maybe you should also try to understand my perspective that I am outlining.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Authenticjazzman
    " If you really were such a genius", you wouldn't feel such a need to proclaim it".

    So now you are "Knowing" what I should feel or should not feel, which indicates that you have somehow taken over or invaded my mind and you are aware of all of my motivations and ideals.

    How about this : I will do, or say what I please and I do not require your approval therefore.

    And regarding my "mensa" membership, well I still have somewhere in my personal belongings, the gold-embossed acceptance certificate dated 1973, (I can't recall the precise date) and If you have any bones to pick with the Mensa society regarding such, I would advise you to contact them and inform them that they have been awarding membership to undeserving individuals according to your parameters, and that they therefore should alter their membership requirements to conform to your standards.

    Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    How about this : I will do, or say what I please and I do not require your approval therefore.

    Look, I never told you what to do or not to do. My view is that what you do is in your nature so for me to ask you to stop would be like asking a swine to stop wallowing in its own excrement.

    My preference would simply be for you to do what you do elsewhere because it is mentally unhygienic and revolting. Why don’t you go somewhere else and do it? Why must you do it here? To what do I owe the honor?

    In principle, the purpose of the comments section is to discuss the article. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure you haven’t even read the article. To be fair it’s not just you. There are trolls here who say proudly that they haven’t read the article that they are commenting under.

    There are countless articles on the net that I didn’t read and I don’t write comments under them saying proudly that (a) I didn’t read the article AND (b) that the article is shit.

    And regarding my “mensa” membership, well I still have somewhere in my personal belongings, the gold-embossed acceptance certificate dated 1973,

    Uhh, yeah, and I’ve got a platinum-embossed certificate that commemorates when I got my first piece of tail.

    Dude, you are so pathetic. If you were at all clever in any real sense, you would at least know that NOBODY gives a shit!

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years

    NOBODY CARES!!! GO GET A LIFE!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Talha says:
    @Stonehands

    Oh, and you’re an expert? Where did you learn the term “wet work” – from a Steven Seagal movie?
     
    I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money.


    You think you're smart? You're not smart- you're a crafty, unprincipled fellow.

    All the world has seen the mask ripped from the face of the Deep State in this Presidential election.

    The CIA and State Dept. run amok openly supplying wahhabi terrorists with WMD. The Traitor that is still in office just approved the arming of these radicals with MANPADS.

    Yet, you can't see the connections between The Never Ending Fake War On Terror-[ and the terrorizing of citizens on 9/11 in order to manufacture consent] and The Deep State.

    That's why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein.

    just approved the arming of these radicals with MANPADS

    I just saw that – these people (both the givers and receivers) are crazy! I cannot believe they are doing this.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Ron Unz
    I happened to notice that Gregory Cochran had unexpectedly become a repeated point of discussion in this thread. So here's the story, which I'd previously provided:

    http://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692032

    As I said, I'd probably be willing to feature Cochran's writing in my webzine...just so long as he provides me a direct personal apology for his past misbehavior. So the ball is completely in his court, and any Cochran fans should be approaching him, not me.

    I happened to notice that Gregory Cochran had unexpectedly become a repeated point of discussion in this thread.

    Well, it’s just because there was the one Gregory Cochran fanboy who was doing Lloyd Bentsen to my Dan Quayle, I guess. Remember that?

    “I knew Greg Cochran. Greg Cochran was a friend of mine. I performed oral sex on Greg Cochran. You sir, are no Greg Cochran.”

    Dang, he really put me in my place. There I was thinking I was Greg Cochran and he cruelly shattered all my illusions…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Well, it’s just because there was the one Gregory Cochran fanboy who was doing Lloyd Bentsen to my Dan Quayle, I guess. Remember that?"

    Not only are you not Gregory Cochran. You're not even Dan Quayle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Mr. Anon
    "Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?"

    I'm not your lackey. Look it up yourself.

    "As I recall, this is how you answered the question the last time, by posing the above irrelevant question. We’re discussing 9/11, aren’t we?"

    It isn't irrelevant. If we didn't land a man on the Moon, that would be a massive government conspiracy too, wouldn't it? You seem to think that everything is the result of hidden forces. You have no opinion on that issue? I think you do. And I think you know that voicing it would make a lot of people tune you out permanently. It locates your place on the crank scale, and I'm betting you come in at a 10.

    And, by the way, for the record, you have implied here, not only that were no terrorists and no victims on the airplanes, but that their were no airplanes at all.

    “Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?”

    I’m not your lackey. Look it up yourself.

    Uhh, how can I look up something that doesn’t exist? Everybody here including you knows that you were lying your ass off when you said you had answered the question. I was simply calling your bluff when I asked you to provide the link.

    Well, everybody who has interacted with you surely knows that you’re a chronic liar. At one point, you said you had read a lot of the conspiracist literature and it was all bullshit. I asked you to name some of the books you had read and you refused to answer. Because you were lying there too… you haven’t read anything. I knew you had never read any books on any of these topics. because you never bring any real knowledge into any discussion. You don’t really know anything. Your whole position is the classic shit eater position that whatever it is must be true because it’s the official story.

    This is a key point in this very article. You ask a religious fanatic for proof of some story that’s in the Bible and the answer is that the story is in the Bible. You ask a shit eater like you for the proof of some fantastical story like what the government says happened on 9/11. And the person just says it’s the official story. Claims it’s a “fact”. That’s what it always comes down to.

    It isn’t irrelevant.

    Well, this is what you always do when you’re getting cornered. You throw the “Hail Mary” pass of starting to talk about the Moon landings.

    Why should I switch from discussing 9/11 with you, a subject you know fuck-all about, to discussing the Moon landings, another topic you surely know fuck-all about.

    Hey, why don’t we discuss something you definitely do know something about? Like uhhh…. being a LYING TROLL SCUMBAG….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Uhh, how can I look up something that doesn’t exist? Everybody here including you knows that you were lying your ass off when you said you had answered the question.

    I did answer your question. You are too lazy to look for it. I ain't you lackey.

    "Well, everybody who has interacted with you surely knows that you’re a chronic liar."

    That's a lie. I've never said anything here that's a lie. Name one. You're lying now about that. You don't even know what the truth is, befuddled as you are by your own dipshit beliefs.

    "Why should I switch from discussing 9/11 with you, a subject you know fuck-all about, to discussing the Moon landings, another topic you surely know fuck-all about."

    I evidently know more about 9/11 than you do. And a lot more about the Moon landings, surely. Incidently, you're still afraid to broach that topic aren't you? Afraid of what intelligent people will think about you?

    Go on screaming your idiot nonsense into the void, preaching to the half-dozen people here who seemingly revere you as some kind of prophet. Write 20,000 word essays filled up with your witless drivel, for all I care. It won't change what you are: a pathetic, irrelevant nobody who deludes himself that he is some kind of genius. You aren't. You are a crank and a nitwit.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Renoman
    Brevity! Learn about it. No one under 75 has the patience for this style of writing.

    Brevity! Learn about it.

    Brevity has its merits and, other things equal, it’s better to say the same thing in fewer words, I suppose.

    However, an ignoramus who has absolutely nothing to say preaching brevity is like a eunuch preaching chastity.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Qasim
    Wow, another excellent article, Mr. Revusky!

    A bunch of people are criticizing the length of this article and Revusky's prolix writing style. But any sharing of ideas is dependent on the presence of shared, unstated, underlying assumptions that facilitate the discourse. Since the main thrust of Revusky's worldview is the rejection of much of our culture's foundational subconscious maxims, spending a lot of time on explicitly establishing new parameters for debate is inescapable.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general. The way atheists get to endlessly attack other worldviews and hardly ever have to answer for their own misdeeds boggles the mind. In particular, this is an alt-Right sort of website, where many people vociferously criticize the hypocrisy of multiculturalism. But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.

    Western civilization has been largely created (and certainly dominated) by White, Christian, heterosexual men, and multiculturalism has brought under its umbrella numerous groups that seek to undermine this state of affairs. But some groups are more influential in this movement; others are just self-servingly along for the ride.

    There are endless articles (and comments) on this website about the malign influence of Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks on Western societies. And increasingly, the roles of feminists, gays, and Jews in the multicultural project are being highlighted. But there is almost no outrage directed at atheists or the irreligious, although an excellent argument can be made that it is irreligion that forms the primary impetus to destroy traditional Western civilization. For example, it is irreligious women (not nuns) who make up the bulk of the most strident feminists, and it is irreligious secular Jews (not the orthodox) who make up the bulk of the Jews engaging in the "culture of critique".

    Also, religion tends to inculcate the adoption of the correspondence theory of truth in its followers (a true statement is one that corresponds with external reality), whereas atheists are must more apt to adopt constructivist versions of "truth" (truth being a man-made social construct). It is not a coincidence that our increasingly irreligious societies are so obsessed with POLITICAL correctness (i.e. factual incorrectness), and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S. No religious society has ever come up with such nonsense as race and gender are merely social constructs.

    I have one criticism of the article though. Although I sympathize with the point he was trying to make, comparing irreligious fanaticism to a religion just feeds the unjust stereotype linking religion and fanaticism! This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!! Even more asinine was Richard Dawkins saying one could as easily put the blame on atheist dictators such as Stalin on their mustaches as you could to their atheism! I think it is fairer to say that fanaticism is just an inextricable part of human nature. However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.

    Hi, Qasim. I’m glad you liked the article.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general.

    Well, as I said in my concluding remarks, the original intention actually was to write something more focused (and shorter) on the New Atheists. That was actually the origin of the ARRF acronym. But as the article evolved, the ARRF term actually came to mean more the civic religion of the West, which I describe.

    So ARRF is not the same thing as atheism. There are religious groups that have gone full-blown ARRF actually, like reform Judaism with lesbian rabbis and gay marriages. By the way, this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a “reformation”, basically means that Islam should become ARRF compatible. So, if, one day you go into the mosque and you have a lesbian imam there who is preparing for an “Islamic gay wedding”, you will know that your religion just got ARRF-ized, while you weren’t looking, had it’s Reformation! (I suspect that in such case, you would probably go out and look for another mosque to join! One that hasn’t been ARRF-ized yet!) Oh, and note that the way they will frame it is that Islam is not compatible with…. DEMOCRACY! So it needs to be “reformed”…

    Anyway, the “New Atheists” are a just one virulent strand of ARRF that basically says that society would be better if we just eliminated all religion, so they don’t even want to ARRF-ize religion, just get rid of it completely.

    Well, another aspect of this is that these people go well beyond “atheism”. Strictly speaking, atheism wold just be the absence of theism, i.e. religiosity, not being religious oneself — which is anybody’s right in a free society. Their thing is extreme hostility towards religion and also blaming religion (pretty absurdly) for most of society’s ills. They are more like rabid ANTI-theists than A-theists.

    But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.

    Yes, exactly right. One aspect of this whole thing that I did not even touch on (because even writing 12k words, I actually cut out things) is that, for the White nationalists going on and on about the extinction of the white race, well, the biggest A-1-A problem there is not actually immigration, it’s the fertility rate of the white people themselves! In Spain, it’s way below replacement level and this used to be a Catholic society where people had big families. But it’s the same story in Italy, for example. The French, I think, actually are still at close to replacement level for some reason, but Germany has totally cratered. A people that doesn’t reproduce itself dies off whether there is immigration or not! So if you’re a white nationalist, you should be much more anti-ARRF than anti-Islam.

    My view is that any society that drops its traditional religious culture for ARRF pretty much invariably has its birth rate crater. Actually, I thought finally I’d leave this for a later essay because it’s a big topic in itself. Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it’s ARRF.

    Another key aspect of this is the whole synthetic narrative of this big conflict between Christianity and Islam. In reality, the conflict is between ARRF and Islam. And its not even that. It’s between ARRF and traditional religions. (If you’ve ARRF-ized your religion somehow, then it’s more or less okay, but if your religion is still saying these hateful things like that marriage is a man and a woman, then…)

    and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S.

    Yeah, I agree. That was a point I touched on in the piece. I’m pretty sure that Vladimir Putin and that whole tendency in Russian politics basically understand this, and that is why they are interested in trying to revitalize Russia’s traditional religious culture of Orthodox Christianity. I suppose that after so many decades of communism, it was really in bad shape, but they’re trying to get a flame going out of the cinders, I think. But my sense is that this is the reasoning.

    That whole Pussy Riot thing was sort of a skirmish in the ARRF versus traditional religious culture conflict, though probably those silly girls did not really understand what they were part of.

    This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!!

    Yeah, I ran across that and it seems to me like Harris is scoring an “own goal” there. Because once you recognize that a secular ideology can be just as fanatical and murderous as any religion-based one, then how can you argue that getting rid of the traditional religions is going to make the world better?

    Actually, though, the secular fanaticism is much more murderous, it seems. According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, mind you), Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of approximately 2000 people. And that was in an entire decades long career of persecuting heretics and infidels. Okay, it’s a serious matter, 2000 people, but obviously the Spanish Inquisition is total chickenshit compared to atheist communists in the 20th century! And compared to the ARRF war of terror against the Islamic world, where it’s also MILLIONS killed. So WTF are these people talking about?

    However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.

    Yeah, I don’t see how any honest person could come to a different conclusion from that. Now, of course, again, I would make the point that the people in question do go way beyond just being atheistic, in the sense that they’re not into religion — like I myself am not religious, but I respect the people who are. These people are violently ANTI-theistic.

    But, surely you have noticed that the anti-religious ferver of Dawkins and the rest is, I think, at least 80% Islamophobia. I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no? You hate Islam, okay, but you hate Christianity, you hate Hinduism and Buddhism… You just hate it all. In that case, I could actually respect them a bit more. But the fact that all their hatred of religion is concentrated on Islam does kind of tell you who is really behind this, what interests they are serving. Well, these people are total Zionist tools.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey JR,

    Good article. Couple of points:


    "this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a 'reformation'"
     
    Lord Cromer, the British Consul to Egypt wrote (in 'Modern Egypt'):
    "Islam cannot be reformed; that is to say, reformed Islam is Islam no longer ; it is something else: we cannot as yet tell what it will eventually be."

    What these voices forget is that there is a reformation going on, just like 'gay weddings' are one side of the reformation, so are Salafi/Wahabbi extremists - but you can't say that because the reformation is only supposed to go one way. There are not supposed to be side-effects for the wonderful pill they are asking us to swallow.

    But, as I said before; what is good for the lesbian imam goose may be good for the suicide-vest-strapping gander.


    I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no?
     
    They do, and I've seen some of the most vicious attacks being hurled against Christianity (especially Hitchens and Dawkins). But, in a free-for-all-last-man-standing-in-the-ring situation - Islam is just the last one still swinging, though Catholicism does manage a few jabs time and again (good for them). The other ones are on the ropes. It is smart to concentrate on the guy on his feet.

    For instance, one of our local scholars forwarded this article* to everyone:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38449822

    With the statement; "We refuse to shackle ourselves to the gender-deconstructed hell others have made for themselves. Allāh preserve the Ghayrat (honor/dignity) of the Ummah."

    Peace.

    *Note: Yes, that is the heir of the Sokoto Caliphate established by The Shehu (Uthman Dan Fodi) [ra].

    , @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it’s ARRF.
     
    well, I don't consider myself a 'white nationalist type' per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn't want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism - with the uncontrolled and infinite importation of other races and cultures into the lands where my ancestors were forged out of tens of thousands of years of struggle.

    For some incomprehensible reason, (actually it is known and it's called resentment) all white nations are supposed to consider their replacement by Muslims (and Africans and Asians and everyone else) as some kind of no-brainer. And if they have qualms, are pejoratively referred to as "white nationalists" or "white supremacists".

    Do they demand the same thing of Japan, that it open its borders to infinite throngs of non-Japanese, and harangue any Japanese who object as being "Japanese supremacists" or "Japanese nationalists"?

    Do they call the Arabs of Saudi Arabia "Arab supremacists" for preventing unlimited immigration of others into *their* country? No, because they're allowed to have a country of their own, and why not?!

    But when it comes to Sweden or Germany or N. America, all the white people are supposed to kneejerk prostrate themselves before the genocidal demon god of diversity/multiculturalism, filled with so much self-loathing and self-contempt, that they just can't wait until their own race is wiped out and blended away; as has been done in every place where unlimited immigration has been the mantra of the day. No-go areas in England and Sweden and Muslim rape gangs. And if there's a sane person paying attentions, whose spirit and love of his people have not been trampled and ground under by the politically correct armies of SJW and mantras of death and genocide, then it can only mean he must be a Nazi/racist/KKK/white supremacist/white nationalist, blah, blah, blah.

    For a Palestinian to demand that they too have a right to exist and to persevere as a distinct people in their own lands, with their own traditions and culture and identity, is considered laudable and commendable by people both on the left and on the right.

    But for a Swede or Brit or (heavens no), an American- to question the wisdom of importing millions upon millions of people with very little (none) ties to his culture or heritage or traditions, let alone his ethnicity, and he's supposed to hand it all over and beg their forgiveness for his racism and toss his children onto the flaming pyres of multiculturalism for his terrible guilt at being white, is rather incomprehensible to me. And I'd be called a "white nationalist" by these people. Who demand that all white nations open their borders to everyone else.

    It is insane. OK. It isn't hostility to Muslims or Islam, so long as Muslims and Islam stay in their own countries!

    Wondering aloud at the curious antipathy some Europeans or Americans have for Muslims (and everyone else) who are pouring over their/our borders and creating hostility and strife, and scratching your head saying, what's with these 'white nationalist types"? Is the height of arrogance. *Of course!* people want to keep their lands and nations for their children and grandchildren to grow up in and thrive in and prosper in, without tribal hostilities and hatred.

    That is obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain and a shred of respect for even, yes, those evil hated racist white people.

    look at New Zealand or Iceland and the quality of life of those places, and then ask yourself if those people looked at England or the rape capital of the world; Sweden today, and said 'no thanks'- would you call those people 'white nationalists"? Or simply sane people who like their culture and identity and feel no need to see it all destroyed and trampled under with tribal hatreds and strife by importing millions of non-Westerners into their lands?

    It has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with love. A love of one's people and a normal human desire to see your people (whomever they are.. Muslim or Christian or white/black/brown or whatever) thrive and prosper and persevere. Just as you respect all other peoples to feel the same way about their children and culture and yes, ethnicity.

    , @hyperbola

    Actually, though, the secular fanaticism is much more murderous, it seems. According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, mind you), Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of approximately 2000 people. And that was in an entire decades long career of persecuting heretics and infidels. Okay, it’s a serious matter, 2000 people, but obviously the Spanish Inquisition is total chickenshit compared to atheist communists in the 20th century!
     
    Why focus on Torquemada at all? Someone who lives in Spain might have noticed that the Spanish were rather late in the banning business. Blaming "Torquemada" seems to be a convenient way to ignore much other history.

    Jewish banishment and the City of London
    https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/jewish-banishment-the-city-of-london/

    In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.
     
    And given that history, the current fashion of blaming the "zionists" seems more of a cover-up than anything else. The "problem" seems to be more fundamental and long-lasting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Talha says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi, Qasim. I'm glad you liked the article.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general.
     
    Well, as I said in my concluding remarks, the original intention actually was to write something more focused (and shorter) on the New Atheists. That was actually the origin of the ARRF acronym. But as the article evolved, the ARRF term actually came to mean more the civic religion of the West, which I describe.

    So ARRF is not the same thing as atheism. There are religious groups that have gone full-blown ARRF actually, like reform Judaism with lesbian rabbis and gay marriages. By the way, this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a "reformation", basically means that Islam should become ARRF compatible. So, if, one day you go into the mosque and you have a lesbian imam there who is preparing for an "Islamic gay wedding", you will know that your religion just got ARRF-ized, while you weren't looking, had it's Reformation! (I suspect that in such case, you would probably go out and look for another mosque to join! One that hasn't been ARRF-ized yet!) Oh, and note that the way they will frame it is that Islam is not compatible with.... DEMOCRACY! So it needs to be "reformed"...

    Anyway, the "New Atheists" are a just one virulent strand of ARRF that basically says that society would be better if we just eliminated all religion, so they don't even want to ARRF-ize religion, just get rid of it completely.

    Well, another aspect of this is that these people go well beyond "atheism". Strictly speaking, atheism wold just be the absence of theism, i.e. religiosity, not being religious oneself -- which is anybody's right in a free society. Their thing is extreme hostility towards religion and also blaming religion (pretty absurdly) for most of society's ills. They are more like rabid ANTI-theists than A-theists.

    But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.
     
    Yes, exactly right. One aspect of this whole thing that I did not even touch on (because even writing 12k words, I actually cut out things) is that, for the White nationalists going on and on about the extinction of the white race, well, the biggest A-1-A problem there is not actually immigration, it's the fertility rate of the white people themselves! In Spain, it's way below replacement level and this used to be a Catholic society where people had big families. But it's the same story in Italy, for example. The French, I think, actually are still at close to replacement level for some reason, but Germany has totally cratered. A people that doesn't reproduce itself dies off whether there is immigration or not! So if you're a white nationalist, you should be much more anti-ARRF than anti-Islam.

    My view is that any society that drops its traditional religious culture for ARRF pretty much invariably has its birth rate crater. Actually, I thought finally I'd leave this for a later essay because it's a big topic in itself. Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it's ARRF.

    Another key aspect of this is the whole synthetic narrative of this big conflict between Christianity and Islam. In reality, the conflict is between ARRF and Islam. And its not even that. It's between ARRF and traditional religions. (If you've ARRF-ized your religion somehow, then it's more or less okay, but if your religion is still saying these hateful things like that marriage is a man and a woman, then...)

    and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S.
     
    Yeah, I agree. That was a point I touched on in the piece. I'm pretty sure that Vladimir Putin and that whole tendency in Russian politics basically understand this, and that is why they are interested in trying to revitalize Russia's traditional religious culture of Orthodox Christianity. I suppose that after so many decades of communism, it was really in bad shape, but they're trying to get a flame going out of the cinders, I think. But my sense is that this is the reasoning.

    That whole Pussy Riot thing was sort of a skirmish in the ARRF versus traditional religious culture conflict, though probably those silly girls did not really understand what they were part of.

    This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!!
     
    Yeah, I ran across that and it seems to me like Harris is scoring an "own goal" there. Because once you recognize that a secular ideology can be just as fanatical and murderous as any religion-based one, then how can you argue that getting rid of the traditional religions is going to make the world better?

    Actually, though, the secular fanaticism is much more murderous, it seems. According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, mind you), Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of approximately 2000 people. And that was in an entire decades long career of persecuting heretics and infidels. Okay, it's a serious matter, 2000 people, but obviously the Spanish Inquisition is total chickenshit compared to atheist communists in the 20th century! And compared to the ARRF war of terror against the Islamic world, where it's also MILLIONS killed. So WTF are these people talking about?

    However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.
     
    Yeah, I don't see how any honest person could come to a different conclusion from that. Now, of course, again, I would make the point that the people in question do go way beyond just being atheistic, in the sense that they're not into religion -- like I myself am not religious, but I respect the people who are. These people are violently ANTI-theistic.

    But, surely you have noticed that the anti-religious ferver of Dawkins and the rest is, I think, at least 80% Islamophobia. I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no? You hate Islam, okay, but you hate Christianity, you hate Hinduism and Buddhism... You just hate it all. In that case, I could actually respect them a bit more. But the fact that all their hatred of religion is concentrated on Islam does kind of tell you who is really behind this, what interests they are serving. Well, these people are total Zionist tools.

    Hey JR,

    Good article. Couple of points:

    “this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a ‘reformation’”

    Lord Cromer, the British Consul to Egypt wrote (in ‘Modern Egypt’):
    “Islam cannot be reformed; that is to say, reformed Islam is Islam no longer ; it is something else: we cannot as yet tell what it will eventually be.”

    What these voices forget is that there is a reformation going on, just like ‘gay weddings’ are one side of the reformation, so are Salafi/Wahabbi extremists – but you can’t say that because the reformation is only supposed to go one way. There are not supposed to be side-effects for the wonderful pill they are asking us to swallow.

    But, as I said before; what is good for the lesbian imam goose may be good for the suicide-vest-strapping gander.

    I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no?

    They do, and I’ve seen some of the most vicious attacks being hurled against Christianity (especially Hitchens and Dawkins). But, in a free-for-all-last-man-standing-in-the-ring situation – Islam is just the last one still swinging, though Catholicism does manage a few jabs time and again (good for them). The other ones are on the ropes. It is smart to concentrate on the guy on his feet.

    For instance, one of our local scholars forwarded this article* to everyone:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38449822

    With the statement; “We refuse to shackle ourselves to the gender-deconstructed hell others have made for themselves. Allāh preserve the Ghayrat (honor/dignity) of the Ummah.”

    Peace.

    *Note: Yes, that is the heir of the Sokoto Caliphate established by The Shehu (Uthman Dan Fodi) [ra].

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey JR,

    Good article.
     

    Hi, Uncle Talha.

    I'm a simple-minded guy who thinks that the purpose of the comment space under the article is, broadly speaking, to discuss the article. Of course, I understand that conversations develop in whatever direction and so forth. But still, it is to discuss the article. So you have the trolls here openly saying that they never read the article (though also saying the article is shit!) and commenting here. I'm getting used to the utter shameless mendacity of some of the people one interacts with here but I still find that kind of thing a little bit shocking.

    So, first of all, I have a suspicion that you have not read the article. I am not sure and I obviously cannot demonstrate that. So I will just ask you to confirm that you have read the article. If you have, I would like you to summarize the main points I made that you are most in agreement with and the ones you most disagree with.


    Lord Cromer, the British Consul to Egypt wrote
     
    Okay, well, I made a point of googling who Lord Cromer was. I had no idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Baring,_1st_Earl_of_Cromer

    What I am puzzled about is why you are quoting this rather obscure (at least by now) historical figure and saying what he said about Islam. You're not providing any context as to why anybody should care what this guy says, nor are you really telling us who this person was, like even what century the dude lived in...

    WTF is the point of the above? This kind of throwing stuff out there to demonstrate your erudition or something, but without really developing an idea. Okay, this seems to be part of the Uncle Talha schtick, but it is rather intellectually unserious. If you want to talk with me, I would like you to refrain from that. If you want to develop an idea, and if developing that idea means telling us about this Cromer guy (who died 100 years ago) and how this fits in, by all means, but just throwing out some out-of-context random factoid to give an impression of your great erudition -- it seems pretty masturbatory to me.


    What these voices forget is that there is a reformation going on, just like ‘gay weddings’ are one side of the reformation, so are Salafi/Wahabbi extremists
     
    Which "extremists"? The religious Muslims who destroyed World Trade Center?

    The ones in the fake beheading videos with the fake blood and everything?

    They do, and I’ve seen some of the most vicious attacks being hurled against Christianity (especially Hitchens and Dawkins).
     

    Well, what I said was that these people's anti-religiosity is about 80% Islamophobia, so yes, you will find them shitting on Christianity too. However, what makes these people ideologically useful to the Zionists and is why they are promoted, is the Islamophobia part. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand very much. Ask Qasim. He'll explain it. I'm sure he understands this.

    Look, you're being willfully obtuse. Anybody can understand why they have to present themselves as being generically anti-religious and not solely as Islamophobes. It's for the same reason that that Charlie Hebdo rag in Paris had to shit on Christianity once in a while too. But there, again, you would see if you looked at it that 80% of it was shitting on Muslims.

    You see, the basic problem here, Talha, is that if you are a Muslim, these people are your enemies. If you want to be so fucking stupid that you are unable to even know who the enemies of your people are, that is your business, but for me to characterize this as Uncle Tom behavior, or Uncle Talha behavior is, I think, quite accurate.

    I previously came to the conclusion this Uncle Talha was not at all a real person, but some sort of Zio Troll construct. This is because the whole Zionist propaganda line is this Good Muzzie versus Bad Muzzie dialectic. And you always seem to be pushing that. Also, you never show any consciousness of just how cartoonish and fake all these "Radical Islamic terrorists" we are being presented with are.

    Finally, I decided you were a real American Muslim who, in the terms of the above article, has his head full of ARRF. And it is probably true that ARRF and real Islam are incompatible, so you've got two incompatible world views floating around in your head and this is why basically you are, in the highly specalized, technical terminology of the article I wrote, so totally brainfucked. It is sad to see, but whatever route out of this you have to take, well, it's your path, I can only help you very slightly.

    *Note: Yes, that is the heir of the Sokoto Caliphate established by The Shehu (Uthman Dan Fodi) [ra].
     

    Ah, yeah, there you go again with the Uncle Talha erudition schtick. If you want to keep talking with me (big "if", I know) please cut that shit out. I don't like it.

    By all means, bring relevant facts into the conversation, but at least explain how they relate to WTF we're talking about.

    Thanks,

    JR

    , @Mr. Anon
    Hey Talha,

    See what your good opinions of and kind words to Mr. Revusky have bought you? He called you an asshole and a lickspittle. He shows such respectful regard for his readers, doesn't he?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Rurik says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "wasn’t Osama Bin Laden a multi-millionaire?"

    Yes, in Afghanistan. Slightly different context.

    "didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?"

    He didn't view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack - a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility

    "who had more means of planting explosives? Osama, or Lucky?"

    There were no explosives.

    “didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?”

    He didn’t view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack – a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility

    ahh, but you see, he didn’t claim responsibility. He said he had nothing to do with it. The fake video of ‘him’ confessing has been exhaustively debunked as a fake. Even the FBI admits it never had a shred of evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. Check it out..

    There were no explosives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "The fake video of ‘him’ confessing has been exhaustively debunked as a fake. Even the FBI admits it never had a shred of evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. Check it out.."

    What fake video? Debunked by whom? What admission by the FBI? All you have to offer are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

    "There were no explosives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLJ1c9VVSH0"

    Explosions prior to the collapse of the buildings? Prior? Is it customary, when demolishing a building, to detonate charges 5 minutes prior to the building coming down?

    You guys talk about controlled demolitions without even understanding anything about them. The charges aren't set off in stages over the course of minutes They're set off almost all at once, and the building comes down immediately. God, there really is nothing so stupid that you guys won't credit it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Rurik says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    Hi, Qasim. I'm glad you liked the article.

    I was hoping this article would have kept more of its focus on the New Atheists, or atheism in general.
     
    Well, as I said in my concluding remarks, the original intention actually was to write something more focused (and shorter) on the New Atheists. That was actually the origin of the ARRF acronym. But as the article evolved, the ARRF term actually came to mean more the civic religion of the West, which I describe.

    So ARRF is not the same thing as atheism. There are religious groups that have gone full-blown ARRF actually, like reform Judaism with lesbian rabbis and gay marriages. By the way, this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a "reformation", basically means that Islam should become ARRF compatible. So, if, one day you go into the mosque and you have a lesbian imam there who is preparing for an "Islamic gay wedding", you will know that your religion just got ARRF-ized, while you weren't looking, had it's Reformation! (I suspect that in such case, you would probably go out and look for another mosque to join! One that hasn't been ARRF-ized yet!) Oh, and note that the way they will frame it is that Islam is not compatible with.... DEMOCRACY! So it needs to be "reformed"...

    Anyway, the "New Atheists" are a just one virulent strand of ARRF that basically says that society would be better if we just eliminated all religion, so they don't even want to ARRF-ize religion, just get rid of it completely.

    Well, another aspect of this is that these people go well beyond "atheism". Strictly speaking, atheism wold just be the absence of theism, i.e. religiosity, not being religious oneself -- which is anybody's right in a free society. Their thing is extreme hostility towards religion and also blaming religion (pretty absurdly) for most of society's ills. They are more like rabid ANTI-theists than A-theists.

    But when it is time to apportion blame for the current state of affairs, things seem to get out of whack.
     
    Yes, exactly right. One aspect of this whole thing that I did not even touch on (because even writing 12k words, I actually cut out things) is that, for the White nationalists going on and on about the extinction of the white race, well, the biggest A-1-A problem there is not actually immigration, it's the fertility rate of the white people themselves! In Spain, it's way below replacement level and this used to be a Catholic society where people had big families. But it's the same story in Italy, for example. The French, I think, actually are still at close to replacement level for some reason, but Germany has totally cratered. A people that doesn't reproduce itself dies off whether there is immigration or not! So if you're a white nationalist, you should be much more anti-ARRF than anti-Islam.

    My view is that any society that drops its traditional religious culture for ARRF pretty much invariably has its birth rate crater. Actually, I thought finally I'd leave this for a later essay because it's a big topic in itself. Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it's ARRF.

    Another key aspect of this is the whole synthetic narrative of this big conflict between Christianity and Islam. In reality, the conflict is between ARRF and Islam. And its not even that. It's between ARRF and traditional religions. (If you've ARRF-ized your religion somehow, then it's more or less okay, but if your religion is still saying these hateful things like that marriage is a man and a woman, then...)

    and that sincere religious belief is the strongest antidote to this B.S.
     
    Yeah, I agree. That was a point I touched on in the piece. I'm pretty sure that Vladimir Putin and that whole tendency in Russian politics basically understand this, and that is why they are interested in trying to revitalize Russia's traditional religious culture of Orthodox Christianity. I suppose that after so many decades of communism, it was really in bad shape, but they're trying to get a flame going out of the cinders, I think. But my sense is that this is the reasoning.

    That whole Pussy Riot thing was sort of a skirmish in the ARRF versus traditional religious culture conflict, though probably those silly girls did not really understand what they were part of.

    This reminds of the way Sam Harris attempted to explain away the hundreds of millions killed by state-sponsored atheism by saying Communism functions like a religion!!
     
    Yeah, I ran across that and it seems to me like Harris is scoring an "own goal" there. Because once you recognize that a secular ideology can be just as fanatical and murderous as any religion-based one, then how can you argue that getting rid of the traditional religions is going to make the world better?

    Actually, though, the secular fanaticism is much more murderous, it seems. According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable source, mind you), Torquemada was responsible for the deaths of approximately 2000 people. And that was in an entire decades long career of persecuting heretics and infidels. Okay, it's a serious matter, 2000 people, but obviously the Spanish Inquisition is total chickenshit compared to atheist communists in the 20th century! And compared to the ARRF war of terror against the Islamic world, where it's also MILLIONS killed. So WTF are these people talking about?

    However, if you look at history as a whole, atheists have proved themselves much more prone to fanaticism when they obtain power than any religion has.
     
    Yeah, I don't see how any honest person could come to a different conclusion from that. Now, of course, again, I would make the point that the people in question do go way beyond just being atheistic, in the sense that they're not into religion -- like I myself am not religious, but I respect the people who are. These people are violently ANTI-theistic.

    But, surely you have noticed that the anti-religious ferver of Dawkins and the rest is, I think, at least 80% Islamophobia. I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no? You hate Islam, okay, but you hate Christianity, you hate Hinduism and Buddhism... You just hate it all. In that case, I could actually respect them a bit more. But the fact that all their hatred of religion is concentrated on Islam does kind of tell you who is really behind this, what interests they are serving. Well, these people are total Zionist tools.

    Hey JR,

    Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it’s ARRF.

    well, I don’t consider myself a ‘white nationalist type’ per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn’t want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism – with the uncontrolled and infinite importation of other races and cultures into the lands where my ancestors were forged out of tens of thousands of years of struggle.

    For some incomprehensible reason, (actually it is known and it’s called resentment) all white nations are supposed to consider their replacement by Muslims (and Africans and Asians and everyone else) as some kind of no-brainer. And if they have qualms, are pejoratively referred to as “white nationalists” or “white supremacists”.

    Do they demand the same thing of Japan, that it open its borders to infinite throngs of non-Japanese, and harangue any Japanese who object as being “Japanese supremacists” or “Japanese nationalists”?

    Do they call the Arabs of Saudi Arabia “Arab supremacists” for preventing unlimited immigration of others into *their* country? No, because they’re allowed to have a country of their own, and why not?!

    But when it comes to Sweden or Germany or N. America, all the white people are supposed to kneejerk prostrate themselves before the genocidal demon god of diversity/multiculturalism, filled with so much self-loathing and self-contempt, that they just can’t wait until their own race is wiped out and blended away; as has been done in every place where unlimited immigration has been the mantra of the day. No-go areas in England and Sweden and Muslim rape gangs. And if there’s a sane person paying attentions, whose spirit and love of his people have not been trampled and ground under by the politically correct armies of SJW and mantras of death and genocide, then it can only mean he must be a Nazi/racist/KKK/white supremacist/white nationalist, blah, blah, blah.

    For a Palestinian to demand that they too have a right to exist and to persevere as a distinct people in their own lands, with their own traditions and culture and identity, is considered laudable and commendable by people both on the left and on the right.

    But for a Swede or Brit or (heavens no), an American- to question the wisdom of importing millions upon millions of people with very little (none) ties to his culture or heritage or traditions, let alone his ethnicity, and he’s supposed to hand it all over and beg their forgiveness for his racism and toss his children onto the flaming pyres of multiculturalism for his terrible guilt at being white, is rather incomprehensible to me. And I’d be called a “white nationalist” by these people. Who demand that all white nations open their borders to everyone else.

    It is insane. OK. It isn’t hostility to Muslims or Islam, so long as Muslims and Islam stay in their own countries!

    Wondering aloud at the curious antipathy some Europeans or Americans have for Muslims (and everyone else) who are pouring over their/our borders and creating hostility and strife, and scratching your head saying, what’s with these ‘white nationalist types”? Is the height of arrogance. *Of course!* people want to keep their lands and nations for their children and grandchildren to grow up in and thrive in and prosper in, without tribal hostilities and hatred.

    That is obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain and a shred of respect for even, yes, those evil hated racist white people.

    look at New Zealand or Iceland and the quality of life of those places, and then ask yourself if those people looked at England or the rape capital of the world; Sweden today, and said ‘no thanks’- would you call those people ‘white nationalists”? Or simply sane people who like their culture and identity and feel no need to see it all destroyed and trampled under with tribal hatreds and strife by importing millions of non-Westerners into their lands?

    It has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with love. A love of one’s people and a normal human desire to see your people (whomever they are.. Muslim or Christian or white/black/brown or whatever) thrive and prosper and persevere. Just as you respect all other peoples to feel the same way about their children and culture and yes, ethnicity.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stonehands
    • Replies: @Stonehands

    well, I don’t consider myself a ‘white nationalist type’ per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn’t want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism –
     
    Excellent talking point, Rurik.


    May I add that no phenotype will ever survive if it educates its women in secular schools.
    The emasculation of men and the whoring of women are the direct results of this degenerate marxist college system. This American tradition of everyone going to university- not to learn- but,"to have a social experience".

    In reality we have biological roles to fulfill, that are paramount.
    ...not the pursuit of frivolous degrees.

    A real alpha man can support the stay- at- home wife of his children.
    This is the only definition I know.

    Maybe white women ain't worth saving?

    Truth is dark.
    , @Jonathan Revusky
    Rurik, could you please focus on the following question and answer it?

    In terms of the basic issue you are talking about, the eventual disappearance of your "phenotype' or whatever, which is the bigger problem?

    A. The refugee problem with so many Muslim refugees flooding into Europe.

    B. The fact that in a country like Germany, the average white female has 1.3 children.

    You are answering me as if I am saying that A is not an issue at all. But I am not saying that. I am saying that B is actually the BIGGER issue. Moreover, the reason for A is that the AngloZionists decided to gratuitously destroy all these Muslim countries -- Iraq, Libya, Syria...

    Here is another question for you:

    How many Muslims do you think there are in the various European countries at this moment? Consider this article:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/12/14/most-countries-hugely-overestimate-their-muslim-population-infographic/#5e319e762180

    I found the above very striking in terms of just how much people overestimate the size of the Muslim immigrant population, when asked.

    You seem to be very plugged into a very right-wing echo chamber and just be repeating talking points. There is no rape epidemic in these countries, you know. I've looked for evidence of this and it's just not there. I don't see any travel advisories telling women not to visit Sweden because they'll get raped and so forth. The notion that Sweden is somehow the "Rape Capital of the World" is just not true.

    THe problem is that this kind of hysterical hyperbole just tends to discredit people because everybody who is not plugged into this right-wing echo chamber knows perfectly well that Sweden is not the "Rape Capital of the World". These statements are so overblown that people with your viewpoint just tend to discredit yourselves. Can't you see that? Apparently not, but you should try to.

    Now, okay, there are surely cases, but so much of this just turns out to be a hoaxes in the end. They say that last year at New Years, there was all this mass raping going on in the Cologne train station. Well, where's the video footage? Everybody has a video camera in their pockets. How can there not be any video footage?

    https://www.rt.com/news/353911-cologne-woman-rape-allegations/

    Or there was this woman Marcia Adair who was in the Cologne railway station when all this mass raping was going on, and she didn't see anything! How is that possible?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/i-was-in-cologne-on-new-years-theres-a-reason-to-be-afraid-and-its-because-of-other-peoples-fear

    Or consider:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/teenage-girl-made-up-migrant-claim-that-caused-uproar-in-germany

    Rurik, you're just letting them play you a fiddle with this stuff. Okay, there are surely some cases of crimes, but the high profile ones, as I see it, pretty much invariably turn out to be hoaxes. The whole story that Swedish or German girls are getting raped right left and center by mobs of swarthy Arab men -- this doesn't seem to be happening. It's just a racist fantasy that goes into some echo chamber really.

    You express admiration for my articles but then you don't seem to understand key parts of them. The part in this article about being "Partially Pregnant" -- it's about taking one issue and not being able to connect the dots and see the whole thing. The bigger issue with what I call ARRF is the cratering of the birth rate. Even if you reduce immigration to zero, you're not going to solve the problem if the average white woman has 1.3 children!

    Can't you see that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it’s ARRF.
     
    well, I don't consider myself a 'white nationalist type' per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn't want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism - with the uncontrolled and infinite importation of other races and cultures into the lands where my ancestors were forged out of tens of thousands of years of struggle.

    For some incomprehensible reason, (actually it is known and it's called resentment) all white nations are supposed to consider their replacement by Muslims (and Africans and Asians and everyone else) as some kind of no-brainer. And if they have qualms, are pejoratively referred to as "white nationalists" or "white supremacists".

    Do they demand the same thing of Japan, that it open its borders to infinite throngs of non-Japanese, and harangue any Japanese who object as being "Japanese supremacists" or "Japanese nationalists"?

    Do they call the Arabs of Saudi Arabia "Arab supremacists" for preventing unlimited immigration of others into *their* country? No, because they're allowed to have a country of their own, and why not?!

    But when it comes to Sweden or Germany or N. America, all the white people are supposed to kneejerk prostrate themselves before the genocidal demon god of diversity/multiculturalism, filled with so much self-loathing and self-contempt, that they just can't wait until their own race is wiped out and blended away; as has been done in every place where unlimited immigration has been the mantra of the day. No-go areas in England and Sweden and Muslim rape gangs. And if there's a sane person paying attentions, whose spirit and love of his people have not been trampled and ground under by the politically correct armies of SJW and mantras of death and genocide, then it can only mean he must be a Nazi/racist/KKK/white supremacist/white nationalist, blah, blah, blah.

    For a Palestinian to demand that they too have a right to exist and to persevere as a distinct people in their own lands, with their own traditions and culture and identity, is considered laudable and commendable by people both on the left and on the right.

    But for a Swede or Brit or (heavens no), an American- to question the wisdom of importing millions upon millions of people with very little (none) ties to his culture or heritage or traditions, let alone his ethnicity, and he's supposed to hand it all over and beg their forgiveness for his racism and toss his children onto the flaming pyres of multiculturalism for his terrible guilt at being white, is rather incomprehensible to me. And I'd be called a "white nationalist" by these people. Who demand that all white nations open their borders to everyone else.

    It is insane. OK. It isn't hostility to Muslims or Islam, so long as Muslims and Islam stay in their own countries!

    Wondering aloud at the curious antipathy some Europeans or Americans have for Muslims (and everyone else) who are pouring over their/our borders and creating hostility and strife, and scratching your head saying, what's with these 'white nationalist types"? Is the height of arrogance. *Of course!* people want to keep their lands and nations for their children and grandchildren to grow up in and thrive in and prosper in, without tribal hostilities and hatred.

    That is obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain and a shred of respect for even, yes, those evil hated racist white people.

    look at New Zealand or Iceland and the quality of life of those places, and then ask yourself if those people looked at England or the rape capital of the world; Sweden today, and said 'no thanks'- would you call those people 'white nationalists"? Or simply sane people who like their culture and identity and feel no need to see it all destroyed and trampled under with tribal hatreds and strife by importing millions of non-Westerners into their lands?

    It has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with love. A love of one's people and a normal human desire to see your people (whomever they are.. Muslim or Christian or white/black/brown or whatever) thrive and prosper and persevere. Just as you respect all other peoples to feel the same way about their children and culture and yes, ethnicity.

    well, I don’t consider myself a ‘white nationalist type’ per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn’t want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism –

    Excellent talking point, Rurik.

    May I add that no phenotype will ever survive if it educates its women in secular schools.
    The emasculation of men and the whoring of women are the direct results of this degenerate marxist college system. This American tradition of everyone going to university- not to learn- but,”to have a social experience”.

    In reality we have biological roles to fulfill, that are paramount.
    …not the pursuit of frivolous degrees.

    A real alpha man can support the stay- at- home wife of his children.
    This is the only definition I know.

    Maybe white women ain’t worth saving?

    Truth is dark.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    thanks Stonehands,

    May I add that no phenotype will ever survive if it educates its women in secular schools.
     
    I don't know Stonehands, look at how it's all those Christian organizations that are organizing the immigration of Somalis into Minnesota and others elsewhere. Look at how the Pope is demanding open borders for all white nations. Look at how there doesn't seem to be one Christian leader who will go on record and say Europeans don't need to be replaced with African and Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims and Jamaicans and everybody else. Where were the Christian leaders as the whites of Zimbabwe were being ethnically cleansed? Archbishop Desmond Tutu (to his credit) spoke out for the blacks, but where is the courageous voice in the Christian Church speaking out for the whites? as they're racially persecuted and ethnically cleansed from their lands? Where are the Christian voices in opposition to massive and transformative immigration? All I hear is crickets Stonehands.

    If there is a strong and honorable and principled Christian who's got the integrity to take on the 'diversity/multiculturalism' agents of genocide, then who is he/she? What church do they belong to?

    The only religious leaders I know of who're defending their flocks right to exist are the Muslims and Jews and Hindus (and agnostics like myself). Even the Mormons are going all in for diversity/genocide.

    I just find it difficult to reconcile myself to a spirituality based on personal abasement. I'm not into turning the other cheek and loving my (deadly, genocidal) enemies. And I certainly don't want to assist them with their grim agenda.

    I do very much consider of the words of Jesus Christ to be sublime (there's that "French" word again) and beautiful and inspiring, His words about love and charity and peace and forgiveness and kindness and so forth are transcendental, but as for a spirituality that will serve a people as their enemies are driving them to the brink, and invading their lands and kicking their women down the subway stairs and raping their children, as was done recently in Austria~ and then the Christian Austrians say 'no problem', we forgive this man who just brutally raped a ten year old Austrian boy. I find such sniveling cowardice and abased spiritual rot to be most disconcerting in the extreme. If I were the Muslims or Jews, I too would figure the only thing worthy of such people, who allow for the rape of their children, would be to crush such sniveling cowards under my immigrant/invader boot with disgust.

    Where are the Christian voices of courage and integrity Stonehands? Why do they all sound so nauseatingly gutless and worm-like?

    look at the entire Christian world. Ireland embracing homosexual marriage, Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats have not uniformly repudiated their leader, who's destroying Christian Germany (Christendom) even as we speak. The Pope protects pedophile priests as does the entire Anglican Church in England where their flocks are being overrun and Muslims with gang rape gangs for British school children operate right under their Christian noses, with nary a word of Christian protest, and where I have yet to hear one of them complain about the British government and BCC being a den of paederastists and pedophiles, not to mention war criminals and mass-murderers.

    So, I hope you'll forgive me if I find the Christian church today wanting when it comes to spiritual vigor and integrity- and uniformly lacking honest men or women willing to protect their flocks from degradation and depravement. They can't even seem to muster the courage to condemn the Eternal Wars that are slaughtering and displacing millions of innocent souls.

    I swear if you listen, you can hear the shekels clinking under their frocks as they preach an anti-Christ, depraved suicidal surrender from their pulpits. And always, always mention Biblical 'Israel' in their sermons for some rea$on.

    now I have to go take a shower after writing about such 'Christians' and 'Christianity'

    (I suspect the Christ is as appalled at the universal cowardice and use of His name by "Christians" to justify mass-murder as some of the rest of us are, if not much, much more so)

    also, I'm not trying to besmirch the good and beautiful Christian people, but rather their anti-Christ- thirty shekels under the frock- Satanic leadership leading them to slaughter. (often literally)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Mr. Anon says:
    @Rurik


    “didn’t the CIA provide a video of ‘him’ confessing to 9/11 and destroying the buildings?”
     
    He didn’t view it as a crime. He viewed it as an attack – a lawful act of war. There would be nothing untoward in his view in claiming responsibility
     
    ahh, but you see, he didn't claim responsibility. He said he had nothing to do with it. The fake video of 'him' confessing has been exhaustively debunked as a fake. Even the FBI admits it never had a shred of evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. Check it out..

    There were no explosives.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLJ1c9VVSH0

    “The fake video of ‘him’ confessing has been exhaustively debunked as a fake. Even the FBI admits it never had a shred of evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. Check it out..”

    What fake video? Debunked by whom? What admission by the FBI? All you have to offer are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

    “There were no explosives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLJ1c9VVSH0″

    Explosions prior to the collapse of the buildings? Prior? Is it customary, when demolishing a building, to detonate charges 5 minutes prior to the building coming down?

    You guys talk about controlled demolitions without even understanding anything about them. The charges aren’t set off in stages over the course of minutes They’re set off almost all at once, and the building comes down immediately. God, there really is nothing so stupid that you guys won’t credit it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    What fake video? Debunked by whom? What admission by the FBI?
     
    you're the one claiming that Osama actually masterminded 9/11, not me. I'm saying that he didn't, and never claimed to. And that ironically:

    All you have to offer are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.
     

    You guys talk about controlled demolitions without even understanding anything about them. The charges aren’t set off in stages over the course of minutes They’re set off almost all at once, and the building comes down immediately. God, there really is nothing so stupid that you guys won’t credit it.
     
    how many World Trade Center buildings have you demolished lately?

    are you saying the people in the videos are lying? That the sounds of explosions are faked? That it's impossible for there to have been some preliminary detonations involved to 'soften up' parts of the buildings? Were you part of the team, and can vouch that there were no explosions on that day, and that all the videos and testimony are all a ruse, and Hollywood type actors?

    Just who's the whack-job 'conspiracy' imbecile here anyways?

    First Osama shuts down NORAD, and then the whole government and air force and SACs and implodes building seven and blows up the Pentagon and makes an aircraft disappear in to the ground in Pennsylvania, and now he and his henchmen have created fake videos of NY firemen actors with faked explosions.

    I guess we just don't give Osama enough credit, huh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Ok, I must have missed that. Could you provide a link to where you answered?”

    I’m not your lackey. Look it up yourself.
     
    Uhh, how can I look up something that doesn't exist? Everybody here including you knows that you were lying your ass off when you said you had answered the question. I was simply calling your bluff when I asked you to provide the link.

    Well, everybody who has interacted with you surely knows that you're a chronic liar. At one point, you said you had read a lot of the conspiracist literature and it was all bullshit. I asked you to name some of the books you had read and you refused to answer. Because you were lying there too... you haven't read anything. I knew you had never read any books on any of these topics. because you never bring any real knowledge into any discussion. You don't really know anything. Your whole position is the classic shit eater position that whatever it is must be true because it's the official story.

    This is a key point in this very article. You ask a religious fanatic for proof of some story that's in the Bible and the answer is that the story is in the Bible. You ask a shit eater like you for the proof of some fantastical story like what the government says happened on 9/11. And the person just says it's the official story. Claims it's a "fact". That's what it always comes down to.

    It isn’t irrelevant.
     
    Well, this is what you always do when you're getting cornered. You throw the "Hail Mary" pass of starting to talk about the Moon landings.

    Why should I switch from discussing 9/11 with you, a subject you know fuck-all about, to discussing the Moon landings, another topic you surely know fuck-all about.

    Hey, why don't we discuss something you definitely do know something about? Like uhhh.... being a LYING TROLL SCUMBAG....

    “Uhh, how can I look up something that doesn’t exist? Everybody here including you knows that you were lying your ass off when you said you had answered the question.

    I did answer your question. You are too lazy to look for it. I ain’t you lackey.

    “Well, everybody who has interacted with you surely knows that you’re a chronic liar.”

    That’s a lie. I’ve never said anything here that’s a lie. Name one. You’re lying now about that. You don’t even know what the truth is, befuddled as you are by your own dipshit beliefs.

    “Why should I switch from discussing 9/11 with you, a subject you know fuck-all about, to discussing the Moon landings, another topic you surely know fuck-all about.”

    I evidently know more about 9/11 than you do. And a lot more about the Moon landings, surely. Incidently, you’re still afraid to broach that topic aren’t you? Afraid of what intelligent people will think about you?

    Go on screaming your idiot nonsense into the void, preaching to the half-dozen people here who seemingly revere you as some kind of prophet. Write 20,000 word essays filled up with your witless drivel, for all I care. It won’t change what you are: a pathetic, irrelevant nobody who deludes himself that he is some kind of genius. You aren’t. You are a crank and a nitwit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I happened to notice that Gregory Cochran had unexpectedly become a repeated point of discussion in this thread.
     
    Well, it's just because there was the one Gregory Cochran fanboy who was doing Lloyd Bentsen to my Dan Quayle, I guess. Remember that?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI

    "I knew Greg Cochran. Greg Cochran was a friend of mine. I performed oral sex on Greg Cochran. You sir, are no Greg Cochran."


    Dang, he really put me in my place. There I was thinking I was Greg Cochran and he cruelly shattered all my illusions...

    “Well, it’s just because there was the one Gregory Cochran fanboy who was doing Lloyd Bentsen to my Dan Quayle, I guess. Remember that?”

    Not only are you not Gregory Cochran. You’re not even Dan Quayle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Mr. Anon says:
    @Stonehands

    Oh, and you’re an expert? Where did you learn the term “wet work” – from a Steven Seagal movie?
     
    I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money.


    You think you're smart? You're not smart- you're a crafty, unprincipled fellow.

    All the world has seen the mask ripped from the face of the Deep State in this Presidential election.

    The CIA and State Dept. run amok openly supplying wahhabi terrorists with WMD. The Traitor that is still in office just approved the arming of these radicals with MANPADS.

    Yet, you can't see the connections between The Never Ending Fake War On Terror-[ and the terrorizing of citizens on 9/11 in order to manufacture consent] and The Deep State.

    That's why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein.

    “I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money.”

    But you didn’t lean such a term by being a secret operative in some shadowy organization. Did you? You learned it from a movie.

    “That’s why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein.”

    And……….of course. I must be jewish, mustn’t I be? Because I disagree with you? Maybe you’re a Jew – a hasbara troll, even. Can you prove you’re not?

    BTW, I agree with a lot of what you say, foreign-policy wise. I don’t like the things our government does in our name, but clearly not in our actual interest.

    But all of that doesn’t mean that your crazy story about the World Trade Centers is true.

    There are things that are true, and things that aren’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    But you didn’t lean such a term by being a secret operative in some shadowy organization. Did you? You learned it from a movie.

    I work in a high volume industry, first in NYC, now Philly.

    Everything you hear in a movie reflects the hustle and bustle, and the froth, that rises to the top of our historical milieu.

    Art imitates LIFE!

    Hell, I might have synthesised the term "wet work"..in my younger salad days..bartending and then owning saloons in the City and restaurants on LI...I was certainly proximate to all sorts of "colorful" nice men.

    Well, I've read and agree with a lot of your stances, too, but in this instance we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't make the mistake of lumping those of us who have real qualms with 9/11- with flat earthers, moon landing deniers, etc...the term truthers, and conspiracy theories, I believe was coined by the CIA, who also have access to the hollywood bigs. I believe we are always propagandized by these organs, therefore I chose to reject the electronic culture long ago..

    I also firmly believe that our nation is under spiritual attack for its haughty promotion of feminism, homosexuality abortion, fornication and all things degenerate. Here in Philly they will roll out the King of Gluttony, sitting on top of a giant toilet bowl- cheered on by topless prostitutes, at an affair called Wing Bowl... A father and son "tradition"... Bah.

    So, as America swirls down the drain, silently- don't say you weren't warned.

    If the Bible ain't right, then all we have is nature" red in tooth and claw" and your so called Civil Servants are really Hunters and we are their victims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Mr. Anon
    "I am disinclined to give Hebrew/wood or Talmudvision my time or money."

    But you didn't lean such a term by being a secret operative in some shadowy organization. Did you? You learned it from a movie.

    "That’s why you are a knave, Mr Anonstein."

    And..........of course. I must be jewish, mustn't I be? Because I disagree with you? Maybe you're a Jew - a hasbara troll, even. Can you prove you're not?

    BTW, I agree with a lot of what you say, foreign-policy wise. I don't like the things our government does in our name, but clearly not in our actual interest.

    But all of that doesn't mean that your crazy story about the World Trade Centers is true.

    There are things that are true, and things that aren't.

    But you didn’t lean such a term by being a secret operative in some shadowy organization. Did you? You learned it from a movie.

    I work in a high volume industry, first in NYC, now Philly.

    Everything you hear in a movie reflects the hustle and bustle, and the froth, that rises to the top of our historical milieu.

    Art imitates LIFE!

    Hell, I might have synthesised the term “wet work”..in my younger salad days..bartending and then owning saloons in the City and restaurants on LI…I was certainly proximate to all sorts of “colorful” nice men.

    Well, I’ve read and agree with a lot of your stances, too, but in this instance we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I wouldn’t make the mistake of lumping those of us who have real qualms with 9/11- with flat earthers, moon landing deniers, etc…the term truthers, and conspiracy theories, I believe was coined by the CIA, who also have access to the hollywood bigs. I believe we are always propagandized by these organs, therefore I chose to reject the electronic culture long ago..

    I also firmly believe that our nation is under spiritual attack for its haughty promotion of feminism, homosexuality abortion, fornication and all things degenerate. Here in Philly they will roll out the King of Gluttony, sitting on top of a giant toilet bowl- cheered on by topless prostitutes, at an affair called Wing Bowl… A father and son “tradition”… Bah.

    So, as America swirls down the drain, silently- don’t say you weren’t warned.

    If the Bible ain’t right, then all we have is nature” red in tooth and claw” and your so called Civil Servants are really Hunters and we are their victims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Talha
    Hey JR,

    Good article. Couple of points:


    "this meme that Islam needs to reform itself, to have a 'reformation'"
     
    Lord Cromer, the British Consul to Egypt wrote (in 'Modern Egypt'):
    "Islam cannot be reformed; that is to say, reformed Islam is Islam no longer ; it is something else: we cannot as yet tell what it will eventually be."

    What these voices forget is that there is a reformation going on, just like 'gay weddings' are one side of the reformation, so are Salafi/Wahabbi extremists - but you can't say that because the reformation is only supposed to go one way. There are not supposed to be side-effects for the wonderful pill they are asking us to swallow.

    But, as I said before; what is good for the lesbian imam goose may be good for the suicide-vest-strapping gander.


    I mean to say, if you hate religion, fine, okay, we get it, but then you should hate all religion, no?
     
    They do, and I've seen some of the most vicious attacks being hurled against Christianity (especially Hitchens and Dawkins). But, in a free-for-all-last-man-standing-in-the-ring situation - Islam is just the last one still swinging, though Catholicism does manage a few jabs time and again (good for them). The other ones are on the ropes. It is smart to concentrate on the guy on his feet.

    For instance, one of our local scholars forwarded this article* to everyone:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38449822

    With the statement; "We refuse to shackle ourselves to the gender-deconstructed hell others have made for themselves. Allāh preserve the Ghayrat (honor/dignity) of the Ummah."

    Peace.

    *Note: Yes, that is the heir of the Sokoto Caliphate established by The Shehu (Uthman Dan Fodi) [ra].

    Hey JR,

    Good article.

    Hi, Uncle Talha.

    I’m a simple-minded guy who thinks that the purpose of the comment space under the article is, broadly speaking, to discuss the article. Of course, I understand that conversations develop in whatever direction and so forth. But still, it is to discuss the article. So you have the trolls here openly saying that they never read the article (though also saying the article is shit!) and commenting here. I’m getting used to the utter shameless mendacity of some of the people one interacts with here but I still find that kind of thing a little bit shocking.

    So, first of all, I have a suspicion that you have not read the article. I am not sure and I obviously cannot demonstrate that. So I will just ask you to confirm that you have read the article. If you have, I would like you to summarize the main points I made that you are most in agreement with and the ones you most disagree with.

    Lord Cromer, the British Consul to Egypt wrote

    Okay, well, I made a point of googling who Lord Cromer was. I had no idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Baring,_1st_Earl_of_Cromer

    What I am puzzled about is why you are quoting this rather obscure (at least by now) historical figure and saying what he said about Islam. You’re not providing any context as to why anybody should care what this guy says, nor are you really telling us who this person was, like even what century the dude lived in…

    WTF is the point of the above? This kind of throwing stuff out there to demonstrate your erudition or something, but without really developing an idea. Okay, this seems to be part of the Uncle Talha schtick, but it is rather intellectually unserious. If you want to talk with me, I would like you to refrain from that. If you want to develop an idea, and if developing that idea means telling us about this Cromer guy (who died 100 years ago) and how this fits in, by all means, but just throwing out some out-of-context random factoid to give an impression of your great erudition — it seems pretty masturbatory to me.

    What these voices forget is that there is a reformation going on, just like ‘gay weddings’ are one side of the reformation, so are Salafi/Wahabbi extremists

    Which “extremists”? The religious Muslims who destroyed World Trade Center?

    The ones in the fake beheading videos with the fake blood and everything?

    They do, and I’ve seen some of the most vicious attacks being hurled against Christianity (especially Hitchens and Dawkins).

    Well, what I said was that these people’s anti-religiosity is about 80% Islamophobia, so yes, you will find them shitting on Christianity too. However, what makes these people ideologically useful to the Zionists and is why they are promoted, is the Islamophobia part. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand very much. Ask Qasim. He’ll explain it. I’m sure he understands this.

    Look, you’re being willfully obtuse. Anybody can understand why they have to present themselves as being generically anti-religious and not solely as Islamophobes. It’s for the same reason that that Charlie Hebdo rag in Paris had to shit on Christianity once in a while too. But there, again, you would see if you looked at it that 80% of it was shitting on Muslims.

    You see, the basic problem here, Talha, is that if you are a Muslim, these people are your enemies. If you want to be so fucking stupid that you are unable to even know who the enemies of your people are, that is your business, but for me to characterize this as Uncle Tom behavior, or Uncle Talha behavior is, I think, quite accurate.

    I previously came to the conclusion this Uncle Talha was not at all a real person, but some sort of Zio Troll construct. This is because the whole Zionist propaganda line is this Good Muzzie versus Bad Muzzie dialectic. And you always seem to be pushing that. Also, you never show any consciousness of just how cartoonish and fake all these “Radical Islamic terrorists” we are being presented with are.

    Finally, I decided you were a real American Muslim who, in the terms of the above article, has his head full of ARRF. And it is probably true that ARRF and real Islam are incompatible, so you’ve got two incompatible world views floating around in your head and this is why basically you are, in the highly specalized, technical terminology of the article I wrote, so totally brainfucked. It is sad to see, but whatever route out of this you have to take, well, it’s your path, I can only help you very slightly.

    *Note: Yes, that is the heir of the Sokoto Caliphate established by The Shehu (Uthman Dan Fodi) [ra].

    Ah, yeah, there you go again with the Uncle Talha erudition schtick. If you want to keep talking with me (big “if”, I know) please cut that shit out. I don’t like it.

    By all means, bring relevant facts into the conversation, but at least explain how they relate to WTF we’re talking about.

    Thanks,

    JR

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Dear Nephew JR,

    A few points:
    1) Yes, I did read the whole article - all of it. Thought it was pretty good.
    2) Yup, should have mentioned Lord Cromer was in charge of the modernization/reformation of Egypt (aka 'White Man's Burden') and thus had intimate knowledge of Muslim people and religion - even if from a completely superior attitude.
    3) I think I'm going to go stand over there now - I learned from my mistake; believe me - it won't happen again.

    Peace.

    P.S. You are still invited for Thanksgiving dinner because, well, that's what Uncles are for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Talha says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey JR,

    Good article.
     

    Hi, Uncle Talha.

    I'm a simple-minded guy who thinks that the purpose of the comment space under the article is, broadly speaking, to discuss the article. Of course, I understand that conversations develop in whatever direction and so forth. But still, it is to discuss the article. So you have the trolls here openly saying that they never read the article (though also saying the article is shit!) and commenting here. I'm getting used to the utter shameless mendacity of some of the people one interacts with here but I still find that kind of thing a little bit shocking.

    So, first of all, I have a suspicion that you have not read the article. I am not sure and I obviously cannot demonstrate that. So I will just ask you to confirm that you have read the article. If you have, I would like you to summarize the main points I made that you are most in agreement with and the ones you most disagree with.


    Lord Cromer, the British Consul to Egypt wrote
     
    Okay, well, I made a point of googling who Lord Cromer was. I had no idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Baring,_1st_Earl_of_Cromer

    What I am puzzled about is why you are quoting this rather obscure (at least by now) historical figure and saying what he said about Islam. You're not providing any context as to why anybody should care what this guy says, nor are you really telling us who this person was, like even what century the dude lived in...

    WTF is the point of the above? This kind of throwing stuff out there to demonstrate your erudition or something, but without really developing an idea. Okay, this seems to be part of the Uncle Talha schtick, but it is rather intellectually unserious. If you want to talk with me, I would like you to refrain from that. If you want to develop an idea, and if developing that idea means telling us about this Cromer guy (who died 100 years ago) and how this fits in, by all means, but just throwing out some out-of-context random factoid to give an impression of your great erudition -- it seems pretty masturbatory to me.


    What these voices forget is that there is a reformation going on, just like ‘gay weddings’ are one side of the reformation, so are Salafi/Wahabbi extremists
     
    Which "extremists"? The religious Muslims who destroyed World Trade Center?

    The ones in the fake beheading videos with the fake blood and everything?

    They do, and I’ve seen some of the most vicious attacks being hurled against Christianity (especially Hitchens and Dawkins).
     

    Well, what I said was that these people's anti-religiosity is about 80% Islamophobia, so yes, you will find them shitting on Christianity too. However, what makes these people ideologically useful to the Zionists and is why they are promoted, is the Islamophobia part. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand very much. Ask Qasim. He'll explain it. I'm sure he understands this.

    Look, you're being willfully obtuse. Anybody can understand why they have to present themselves as being generically anti-religious and not solely as Islamophobes. It's for the same reason that that Charlie Hebdo rag in Paris had to shit on Christianity once in a while too. But there, again, you would see if you looked at it that 80% of it was shitting on Muslims.

    You see, the basic problem here, Talha, is that if you are a Muslim, these people are your enemies. If you want to be so fucking stupid that you are unable to even know who the enemies of your people are, that is your business, but for me to characterize this as Uncle Tom behavior, or Uncle Talha behavior is, I think, quite accurate.

    I previously came to the conclusion this Uncle Talha was not at all a real person, but some sort of Zio Troll construct. This is because the whole Zionist propaganda line is this Good Muzzie versus Bad Muzzie dialectic. And you always seem to be pushing that. Also, you never show any consciousness of just how cartoonish and fake all these "Radical Islamic terrorists" we are being presented with are.

    Finally, I decided you were a real American Muslim who, in the terms of the above article, has his head full of ARRF. And it is probably true that ARRF and real Islam are incompatible, so you've got two incompatible world views floating around in your head and this is why basically you are, in the highly specalized, technical terminology of the article I wrote, so totally brainfucked. It is sad to see, but whatever route out of this you have to take, well, it's your path, I can only help you very slightly.

    *Note: Yes, that is the heir of the Sokoto Caliphate established by The Shehu (Uthman Dan Fodi) [ra].
     

    Ah, yeah, there you go again with the Uncle Talha erudition schtick. If you want to keep talking with me (big "if", I know) please cut that shit out. I don't like it.

    By all means, bring relevant facts into the conversation, but at least explain how they relate to WTF we're talking about.

    Thanks,

    JR

    Dear Nephew JR,

    A few points:
    1) Yes, I did read the whole article – all of it. Thought it was pretty good.
    2) Yup, should have mentioned Lord Cromer was in charge of the modernization/reformation of Egypt (aka ‘White Man’s Burden’) and thus had intimate knowledge of Muslim people and religion – even if from a completely superior attitude.
    3) I think I’m going to go stand over there now – I learned from my mistake; believe me – it won’t happen again.

    Peace.

    P.S. You are still invited for Thanksgiving dinner because, well, that’s what Uncles are for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    1) Yes, I did read the whole article – all of it. Thought it was pretty good.
     
    "Pretty good", huh? What does that mean, just "good" or "plusgood" without quite reaching the level of "doubleplusgood"?

    But okay, "good". Well, what was "good" about it? The spacing of the paragraphs maybe?

    In my previous response to you, I said that the reason you were so brainfucked is because you are a Muslim whose head is full of ARRF. That is not a pure throwaway insult. I meant something very specific by that. Assuming you read the article, you ought to understand what I meant by that. In your opinion, what did I mean by that?


    2) Yup, should have mentioned Lord Cromer was in charge of the modernization/reformation of Egypt (aka ‘White Man’s Burden’) and thus had intimate knowledge of Muslim people and religion – even if from a completely superior attitude.
     
    Well, the problem here goes beyond the fact that Lord Cromer is a rather obscure historical figure and that nobody would have any notion of who that is, or why they should give a hoot what this guy says about anything.

    The deeper problem is that you are representing that you are a Muslim who cares very much about his religion, yet you are seemingly unable or afraid to present your own opinion on such a topic. So you start talking about what some obscure historical personage said instead.

    Of course the problem could be this issue that is endemic with people who read too much. They start to have a tendency just to repeat things they read rather than bring any of their own thinking into anything.

    But really, the real, core issue here is that if you believe in your religion and it comes from God, why would that religion, Islam in this case, need some sort of "reformation" to make it compatible with a secular ideology like ARRF? (Or liberal democracy, whatever the hell that really is....) Could you explain your thinking about this issue without making any reference to obscure historical figures like Lord Cromer and what they said? I don't care what Lord Cromer thought about whatever it is. I'm asking you what you think.


    that’s what Uncles are for.
     
    Well, the reason I call you Uncle Talha is by analogy with the "Uncle Tom" term that African-Americans use. This a useful concept that is not unique to the American Negro by any means. An Uncle Tom or an Uncle Talha is somebody who feels a greater identification with his people's oppressors than with his own people. It's a psychological phenomenon probably related at least somewhat to Stockholm Syndrome.

    You are a sad case. For all of Rehmat's evident faults, at least that is a Muslim who knows who his enemies are. And he doesn't feel any pathological need to play kissy kissy with them and simply does not reflect the kind of boot-licking subservience that you feel is your lot, apparently -- even on a web forum where you have anonymity.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Rurik says:
    @Stonehands

    well, I don’t consider myself a ‘white nationalist type’ per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn’t want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism –
     
    Excellent talking point, Rurik.


    May I add that no phenotype will ever survive if it educates its women in secular schools.
    The emasculation of men and the whoring of women are the direct results of this degenerate marxist college system. This American tradition of everyone going to university- not to learn- but,"to have a social experience".

    In reality we have biological roles to fulfill, that are paramount.
    ...not the pursuit of frivolous degrees.

    A real alpha man can support the stay- at- home wife of his children.
    This is the only definition I know.

    Maybe white women ain't worth saving?

    Truth is dark.

    thanks Stonehands,

    May I add that no phenotype will ever survive if it educates its women in secular schools.

    I don’t know Stonehands, look at how it’s all those Christian organizations that are organizing the immigration of Somalis into Minnesota and others elsewhere. Look at how the Pope is demanding open borders for all white nations. Look at how there doesn’t seem to be one Christian leader who will go on record and say Europeans don’t need to be replaced with African and Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims and Jamaicans and everybody else. Where were the Christian leaders as the whites of Zimbabwe were being ethnically cleansed? Archbishop Desmond Tutu (to his credit) spoke out for the blacks, but where is the courageous voice in the Christian Church speaking out for the whites? as they’re racially persecuted and ethnically cleansed from their lands? Where are the Christian voices in opposition to massive and transformative immigration? All I hear is crickets Stonehands.

    If there is a strong and honorable and principled Christian who’s got the integrity to take on the ‘diversity/multiculturalism’ agents of genocide, then who is he/she? What church do they belong to?

    The only religious leaders I know of who’re defending their flocks right to exist are the Muslims and Jews and Hindus (and agnostics like myself). Even the Mormons are going all in for diversity/genocide.

    I just find it difficult to reconcile myself to a spirituality based on personal abasement. I’m not into turning the other cheek and loving my (deadly, genocidal) enemies. And I certainly don’t want to assist them with their grim agenda.

    I do very much consider of the words of Jesus Christ to be sublime (there’s that “French” word again) and beautiful and inspiring, His words about love and charity and peace and forgiveness and kindness and so forth are transcendental, but as for a spirituality that will serve a people as their enemies are driving them to the brink, and invading their lands and kicking their women down the subway stairs and raping their children, as was done recently in Austria~ and then the Christian Austrians say ‘no problem’, we forgive this man who just brutally raped a ten year old Austrian boy. I find such sniveling cowardice and abased spiritual rot to be most disconcerting in the extreme. If I were the Muslims or Jews, I too would figure the only thing worthy of such people, who allow for the rape of their children, would be to crush such sniveling cowards under my immigrant/invader boot with disgust.

    Where are the Christian voices of courage and integrity Stonehands? Why do they all sound so nauseatingly gutless and worm-like?

    look at the entire Christian world. Ireland embracing homosexual marriage, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats have not uniformly repudiated their leader, who’s destroying Christian Germany (Christendom) even as we speak. The Pope protects pedophile priests as does the entire Anglican Church in England where their flocks are being overrun and Muslims with gang rape gangs for British school children operate right under their Christian noses, with nary a word of Christian protest, and where I have yet to hear one of them complain about the British government and BCC being a den of paederastists and pedophiles, not to mention war criminals and mass-murderers.

    So, I hope you’ll forgive me if I find the Christian church today wanting when it comes to spiritual vigor and integrity- and uniformly lacking honest men or women willing to protect their flocks from degradation and depravement. They can’t even seem to muster the courage to condemn the Eternal Wars that are slaughtering and displacing millions of innocent souls.

    I swear if you listen, you can hear the shekels clinking under their frocks as they preach an anti-Christ, depraved suicidal surrender from their pulpits. And always, always mention Biblical ‘Israel’ in their sermons for some rea$on.

    now I have to go take a shower after writing about such ‘Christians’ and ‘Christianity’

    (I suspect the Christ is as appalled at the universal cowardice and use of His name by “Christians” to justify mass-murder as some of the rest of us are, if not much, much more so)

    also, I’m not trying to besmirch the good and beautiful Christian people, but rather their anti-Christ- thirty shekels under the frock- Satanic leadership leading them to slaughter. (often literally)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Hey, Rurik.

    I have stated often on these boards that the RC church is the end-time abomination- Mystery Babylon...

    The pontifex maximus is a title that the pope has inherited from the pagan mystery religion at Pergemum.

    When you think Christian- picture the Amish, or us independent fundamental Baptists. We are not an organization. We are not Rick Warren or some sort of Baptist convention. No one is in charge. We are not affiliated with any other churches. Just simple literal Bible exhortation among ourselves. Door to door soul winning. Righteous clean living through faith in Jesus Christ. Abundant prayer.

    And Rurik, the Bible eloquently states"that a strong Man cannot be assailed in his own home" -we shoot straight, brother!

    I am pecking away on my phone,very difficult...430 am new years morning, just had a record night At the Pizza joint, with my family...the best revenge is a life well lived..screw the NWO...and happy New year's to all my anonymous friends and to Ron Unz for such an informative forum...peace!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Rurik says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "The fake video of ‘him’ confessing has been exhaustively debunked as a fake. Even the FBI admits it never had a shred of evidence to tie Osama to 9/11. Check it out.."

    What fake video? Debunked by whom? What admission by the FBI? All you have to offer are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

    "There were no explosives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLJ1c9VVSH0"

    Explosions prior to the collapse of the buildings? Prior? Is it customary, when demolishing a building, to detonate charges 5 minutes prior to the building coming down?

    You guys talk about controlled demolitions without even understanding anything about them. The charges aren't set off in stages over the course of minutes They're set off almost all at once, and the building comes down immediately. God, there really is nothing so stupid that you guys won't credit it.

    What fake video? Debunked by whom? What admission by the FBI?

    you’re the one claiming that Osama actually masterminded 9/11, not me. I’m saying that he didn’t, and never claimed to. And that ironically:

    All you have to offer are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

    You guys talk about controlled demolitions without even understanding anything about them. The charges aren’t set off in stages over the course of minutes They’re set off almost all at once, and the building comes down immediately. God, there really is nothing so stupid that you guys won’t credit it.

    how many World Trade Center buildings have you demolished lately?

    are you saying the people in the videos are lying? That the sounds of explosions are faked? That it’s impossible for there to have been some preliminary detonations involved to ‘soften up’ parts of the buildings? Were you part of the team, and can vouch that there were no explosions on that day, and that all the videos and testimony are all a ruse, and Hollywood type actors?

    Just who’s the whack-job ‘conspiracy’ imbecile here anyways?

    First Osama shuts down NORAD, and then the whole government and air force and SACs and implodes building seven and blows up the Pentagon and makes an aircraft disappear in to the ground in Pennsylvania, and now he and his henchmen have created fake videos of NY firemen actors with faked explosions.

    I guess we just don’t give Osama enough credit, huh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "You’re the one claiming that Osama actually masterminded 9/11, not me. I’m saying that he didn’t, and never claimed to. And that ironically:"

    I'm not the only one, am I? There are videos of him talking about "the operation" in laudatory terms. Was he in the habit of lauding US Government black-ops? Anyway, nobody ever said Osama bin Laden planned 9/11 - only that he ran the organization that planned it and carried it out.

    "are you saying the people in the videos are lying? That the sounds of explosions are faked?

    Some people think that car backfires are gunfire. A woman reporter said she heard an explosion - and she couldn't possibly be wrong, could she? Blonde talking heads on TV know exactly what high-explosives sound like, don't they? People might have misinterpereted any number of sounds as explosions. In any event, it's possible some shit was exploding, given that big planes had just crashed into the building.

    Or do you deny that big airplanes even hit the building?

    "That it’s impossible for there to have been some preliminary detonations involved to ‘soften up’ parts of the buildings?"

    Yes. That's likely impossible. Have you ever heard of a demolition job where that was done? Can you name one?

    "Were you part of the team,"

    The team I maintain doesn't even exist? The team that is a figment of your febrile imagination? No, I was not a part of that team.

    "and can vouch that there were no explosions on that day, and that all the videos and testimony are all a ruse, and Hollywood type actors?"

    Can you vouch that you exist? I think you are a crisis actor.

    "Just who’s the whack-job ‘conspiracy’ imbecile here anyways?"

    You and your cohorts. Quite clearly.

    "First Osama shuts down NORAD, and then the whole government and air force and SACs and implodes building seven and blows up the Pentagon and makes an aircraft disappear in to the ground in Pennsylvania, and now he and his henchmen have created fake videos of NY firemen actors with faked explosions."

    Quite apart from the other stuff, which you made up, you think all the video from that day was fake? There were no fireman killed? Was anybody killed? If not, why are you so bent out of shape about the whole thing? Was there even a World Trade Center? Or was that all part of some sinister conspiracy?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Mr. Anon says:
    @Rurik

    What fake video? Debunked by whom? What admission by the FBI?
     
    you're the one claiming that Osama actually masterminded 9/11, not me. I'm saying that he didn't, and never claimed to. And that ironically:

    All you have to offer are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.
     

    You guys talk about controlled demolitions without even understanding anything about them. The charges aren’t set off in stages over the course of minutes They’re set off almost all at once, and the building comes down immediately. God, there really is nothing so stupid that you guys won’t credit it.
     
    how many World Trade Center buildings have you demolished lately?

    are you saying the people in the videos are lying? That the sounds of explosions are faked? That it's impossible for there to have been some preliminary detonations involved to 'soften up' parts of the buildings? Were you part of the team, and can vouch that there were no explosions on that day, and that all the videos and testimony are all a ruse, and Hollywood type actors?

    Just who's the whack-job 'conspiracy' imbecile here anyways?

    First Osama shuts down NORAD, and then the whole government and air force and SACs and implodes building seven and blows up the Pentagon and makes an aircraft disappear in to the ground in Pennsylvania, and now he and his henchmen have created fake videos of NY firemen actors with faked explosions.

    I guess we just don't give Osama enough credit, huh?

    “You’re the one claiming that Osama actually masterminded 9/11, not me. I’m saying that he didn’t, and never claimed to. And that ironically:”

    I’m not the only one, am I? There are videos of him talking about “the operation” in laudatory terms. Was he in the habit of lauding US Government black-ops? Anyway, nobody ever said Osama bin Laden planned 9/11 – only that he ran the organization that planned it and carried it out.

    “are you saying the people in the videos are lying? That the sounds of explosions are faked?

    Some people think that car backfires are gunfire. A woman reporter said she heard an explosion – and she couldn’t possibly be wrong, could she? Blonde talking heads on TV know exactly what high-explosives sound like, don’t they? People might have misinterpereted any number of sounds as explosions. In any event, it’s possible some shit was exploding, given that big planes had just crashed into the building.

    Or do you deny that big airplanes even hit the building?

    “That it’s impossible for there to have been some preliminary detonations involved to ‘soften up’ parts of the buildings?”

    Yes. That’s likely impossible. Have you ever heard of a demolition job where that was done? Can you name one?

    “Were you part of the team,”

    The team I maintain doesn’t even exist? The team that is a figment of your febrile imagination? No, I was not a part of that team.

    “and can vouch that there were no explosions on that day, and that all the videos and testimony are all a ruse, and Hollywood type actors?”

    Can you vouch that you exist? I think you are a crisis actor.

    “Just who’s the whack-job ‘conspiracy’ imbecile here anyways?”

    You and your cohorts. Quite clearly.

    “First Osama shuts down NORAD, and then the whole government and air force and SACs and implodes building seven and blows up the Pentagon and makes an aircraft disappear in to the ground in Pennsylvania, and now he and his henchmen have created fake videos of NY firemen actors with faked explosions.”

    Quite apart from the other stuff, which you made up, you think all the video from that day was fake? There were no fireman killed? Was anybody killed? If not, why are you so bent out of shape about the whole thing? Was there even a World Trade Center? Or was that all part of some sinister conspiracy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Rurik
    thanks Stonehands,

    May I add that no phenotype will ever survive if it educates its women in secular schools.
     
    I don't know Stonehands, look at how it's all those Christian organizations that are organizing the immigration of Somalis into Minnesota and others elsewhere. Look at how the Pope is demanding open borders for all white nations. Look at how there doesn't seem to be one Christian leader who will go on record and say Europeans don't need to be replaced with African and Middle Eastern and Asian Muslims and Jamaicans and everybody else. Where were the Christian leaders as the whites of Zimbabwe were being ethnically cleansed? Archbishop Desmond Tutu (to his credit) spoke out for the blacks, but where is the courageous voice in the Christian Church speaking out for the whites? as they're racially persecuted and ethnically cleansed from their lands? Where are the Christian voices in opposition to massive and transformative immigration? All I hear is crickets Stonehands.

    If there is a strong and honorable and principled Christian who's got the integrity to take on the 'diversity/multiculturalism' agents of genocide, then who is he/she? What church do they belong to?

    The only religious leaders I know of who're defending their flocks right to exist are the Muslims and Jews and Hindus (and agnostics like myself). Even the Mormons are going all in for diversity/genocide.

    I just find it difficult to reconcile myself to a spirituality based on personal abasement. I'm not into turning the other cheek and loving my (deadly, genocidal) enemies. And I certainly don't want to assist them with their grim agenda.

    I do very much consider of the words of Jesus Christ to be sublime (there's that "French" word again) and beautiful and inspiring, His words about love and charity and peace and forgiveness and kindness and so forth are transcendental, but as for a spirituality that will serve a people as their enemies are driving them to the brink, and invading their lands and kicking their women down the subway stairs and raping their children, as was done recently in Austria~ and then the Christian Austrians say 'no problem', we forgive this man who just brutally raped a ten year old Austrian boy. I find such sniveling cowardice and abased spiritual rot to be most disconcerting in the extreme. If I were the Muslims or Jews, I too would figure the only thing worthy of such people, who allow for the rape of their children, would be to crush such sniveling cowards under my immigrant/invader boot with disgust.

    Where are the Christian voices of courage and integrity Stonehands? Why do they all sound so nauseatingly gutless and worm-like?

    look at the entire Christian world. Ireland embracing homosexual marriage, Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats have not uniformly repudiated their leader, who's destroying Christian Germany (Christendom) even as we speak. The Pope protects pedophile priests as does the entire Anglican Church in England where their flocks are being overrun and Muslims with gang rape gangs for British school children operate right under their Christian noses, with nary a word of Christian protest, and where I have yet to hear one of them complain about the British government and BCC being a den of paederastists and pedophiles, not to mention war criminals and mass-murderers.

    So, I hope you'll forgive me if I find the Christian church today wanting when it comes to spiritual vigor and integrity- and uniformly lacking honest men or women willing to protect their flocks from degradation and depravement. They can't even seem to muster the courage to condemn the Eternal Wars that are slaughtering and displacing millions of innocent souls.

    I swear if you listen, you can hear the shekels clinking under their frocks as they preach an anti-Christ, depraved suicidal surrender from their pulpits. And always, always mention Biblical 'Israel' in their sermons for some rea$on.

    now I have to go take a shower after writing about such 'Christians' and 'Christianity'

    (I suspect the Christ is as appalled at the universal cowardice and use of His name by "Christians" to justify mass-murder as some of the rest of us are, if not much, much more so)

    also, I'm not trying to besmirch the good and beautiful Christian people, but rather their anti-Christ- thirty shekels under the frock- Satanic leadership leading them to slaughter. (often literally)

    Hey, Rurik.

    I have stated often on these boards that the RC church is the end-time abomination- Mystery Babylon…

    The pontifex maximus is a title that the pope has inherited from the pagan mystery religion at Pergemum.

    When you think Christian- picture the Amish, or us independent fundamental Baptists. We are not an organization. We are not Rick Warren or some sort of Baptist convention. No one is in charge. We are not affiliated with any other churches. Just simple literal Bible exhortation among ourselves. Door to door soul winning. Righteous clean living through faith in Jesus Christ. Abundant prayer.

    And Rurik, the Bible eloquently states”that a strong Man cannot be assailed in his own home” -we shoot straight, brother!

    I am pecking away on my phone,very difficult…430 am new years morning, just had a record night At the Pizza joint, with my family…the best revenge is a life well lived..screw the NWO…and happy New year’s to all my anonymous friends and to Ron Unz for such an informative forum…peace!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You do not know what you are missing. The Catholic Church is the last redoubt. Still holding though very weakly being infiltrated by forces that want its destruction. The protestant brothers caved in long time ago. Look at Sweden, UK, Netherlands. They are always the first one to cave in to the forces that some call it modernity. Amish and Baptists will follow too when pressure will be increased. The former are left unmolested because they are inconsequential while the latter are tolerated because they are perfectly suited in the role of useful idiots that was written for them by Zionists.
    , @Rurik
    Hey Stonehands,

    When you think Christian- picture the Amish,
     
    they can practice their passive ways only because they're surrounded by men with guns who protect the lands that surround them. If they plopped an Amish or Mennonite community in the middle of Detroit or Iraq or Libya or Syria- they're women would be raped and their men slaughtered in not time flat.

    Just simple literal Bible exhortation among ourselves. Door to door soul winning. Righteous clean living through faith in Jesus Christ. Abundant prayer.

    And Rurik, the Bible eloquently states”that a strong Man cannot be assailed in his own home” -we shoot straight, brother!
     
    well amen to defending you and yours! But I'm not too keen on "literal Bible" stuff. I respect your right to believe whatever buoys your soul, but I'm rather more into the 'science stuff'.

    God bless Stonehands, you seem like one of the Christians for whom I have such respect - not braying fealty to men in (clinking) frocks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @ Mr Anon
    Free fall – gravity fall = 32.2 ft/sec/sec

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Congratulations - you know a physical constant. So?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Mr. Anon says:
    @Salford Lad
    @ Mr Anon
    Free fall - gravity fall = 32.2 ft/sec/sec

    Congratulations – you know a physical constant. So?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. utu says:
    @Stonehands
    Hey, Rurik.

    I have stated often on these boards that the RC church is the end-time abomination- Mystery Babylon...

    The pontifex maximus is a title that the pope has inherited from the pagan mystery religion at Pergemum.

    When you think Christian- picture the Amish, or us independent fundamental Baptists. We are not an organization. We are not Rick Warren or some sort of Baptist convention. No one is in charge. We are not affiliated with any other churches. Just simple literal Bible exhortation among ourselves. Door to door soul winning. Righteous clean living through faith in Jesus Christ. Abundant prayer.

    And Rurik, the Bible eloquently states"that a strong Man cannot be assailed in his own home" -we shoot straight, brother!

    I am pecking away on my phone,very difficult...430 am new years morning, just had a record night At the Pizza joint, with my family...the best revenge is a life well lived..screw the NWO...and happy New year's to all my anonymous friends and to Ron Unz for such an informative forum...peace!

    You do not know what you are missing. The Catholic Church is the last redoubt. Still holding though very weakly being infiltrated by forces that want its destruction. The protestant brothers caved in long time ago. Look at Sweden, UK, Netherlands. They are always the first one to cave in to the forces that some call it modernity. Amish and Baptists will follow too when pressure will be increased. The former are left unmolested because they are inconsequential while the latter are tolerated because they are perfectly suited in the role of useful idiots that was written for them by Zionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Utu,

    Christ was put to death by the Jews because He proclaimed to be their Messiah- yet He would NOT fight back against their political arch-enemies, the Romans!
    The Jews expected a conquering King and consequently rejected the Prince of Peace.

    Salvation is predicated and efficient for ALL men on the notion that the perfect sinless life of Christ was a perfect atonal sacrifice- by the shedding of His royal blood on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead. God had such empathy for His creation that he came to earth as
    the man Jesus and suffered the vicissitudes and temptations and death that we all must go through.

    If man will humble himself and call on Jesus earnestly He will heal him and "graft them" on to the olive tree (Israel).

    When Christ's work on the cross was finished, it indicated the end of the Levite intermediary necessity And this the completion of the Old covenant and the beginning of the New...

    Now, man is capable of communicating directly with God through a PERSONAL relationship with Jesus...

    There is no "corporate" salvation or protection through something called the "Vatican", nor can performing their "works" (sacraments) earn your way into heaven...works are the fruit of belief, not vice- versa, lest man boast!
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    The Catholic Church is the last redoubt.
     
    Within a Western European Christian tradition, I think you're probably right. At least in the big picture. The protestant sects have all gone full blown ARRF for the most part.

    But I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is still traditionalist and anti-ARRF.

    And then there is Islam, which is what is really under attack the most. This whole meme that Islam needs a "reformation" is just code that means that Islam should ARRF-ize. I asked Uncle Talha what he thought of that and he started quoting some obscure 19th century limey. I guess that is to evade giving any real opinion of his own.

    A really ARRF-ized religion is Reform Judaism, with lesbian rabbis and gay marriages and so forth. All the dietary laws are just optional and so on. What I wonder about current-day Reform Judaism is whether it is a branch of Judaism that has been made ARRF compatible or is it best understood as a branch of ARRF with vestigial Judaic elements?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @utu
    You do not know what you are missing. The Catholic Church is the last redoubt. Still holding though very weakly being infiltrated by forces that want its destruction. The protestant brothers caved in long time ago. Look at Sweden, UK, Netherlands. They are always the first one to cave in to the forces that some call it modernity. Amish and Baptists will follow too when pressure will be increased. The former are left unmolested because they are inconsequential while the latter are tolerated because they are perfectly suited in the role of useful idiots that was written for them by Zionists.

    Utu,

    Christ was put to death by the Jews because He proclaimed to be their Messiah- yet He would NOT fight back against their political arch-enemies, the Romans!
    The Jews expected a conquering King and consequently rejected the Prince of Peace.

    Salvation is predicated and efficient for ALL men on the notion that the perfect sinless life of Christ was a perfect atonal sacrifice- by the shedding of His royal blood on the cross and subsequent resurrection from the dead. God had such empathy for His creation that he came to earth as
    the man Jesus and suffered the vicissitudes and temptations and death that we all must go through.

    If man will humble himself and call on Jesus earnestly He will heal him and “graft them” on to the olive tree (Israel).

    When Christ’s work on the cross was finished, it indicated the end of the Levite intermediary necessity And this the completion of the Old covenant and the beginning of the New…

    Now, man is capable of communicating directly with God through a PERSONAL relationship with Jesus…

    There is no “corporate” salvation or protection through something called the “Vatican”, nor can performing their “works” (sacraments) earn your way into heaven…works are the fruit of belief, not vice- versa, lest man boast!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Laugh Track
    To speak to this essay itself, while the author makes several good points, I think his overall message is undercut by a meandering and prolix style. I don't think there is anything crucial in it that couldn't have been covered in 3000 words instead of 12,000. Too many acronyms to keep track of, too much self-referentiality, too many asides, just way too much verbiage.

    Hey, I could see this as a first draft where you just let the writing flow, but you really should consider then going back and ruthlessly paring it down and cutting out all the self-indulgence. If your goal is to communicate your ideas, "less is more". Go study Orwell's essays. 1500 words can be sufficient for a good think piece, especially in a Web context where one is reading from a monitor (much less a cell phone screen).

    To put this another way, I found much to think about in this essay, but the writer is his own worst enemy if he actually wants people to read and finish his pieces. I slogged my way through this, but it was not easy.

    In summary, Orwell’s prose, 1500 words; ordinary prose, 3000 words; Revulsion prose, 12000 words. However, if one’s goal is to boggle the reader’s mind with hundreds of non-sequiturs, 3000 words is pretty limiting!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Talha
    Dear Nephew JR,

    A few points:
    1) Yes, I did read the whole article - all of it. Thought it was pretty good.
    2) Yup, should have mentioned Lord Cromer was in charge of the modernization/reformation of Egypt (aka 'White Man's Burden') and thus had intimate knowledge of Muslim people and religion - even if from a completely superior attitude.
    3) I think I'm going to go stand over there now - I learned from my mistake; believe me - it won't happen again.

    Peace.

    P.S. You are still invited for Thanksgiving dinner because, well, that's what Uncles are for.

    1) Yes, I did read the whole article – all of it. Thought it was pretty good.

    “Pretty good”, huh? What does that mean, just “good” or “plusgood” without quite reaching the level of “doubleplusgood”?

    But okay, “good”. Well, what was “good” about it? The spacing of the paragraphs maybe?

    In my previous response to you, I said that the reason you were so brainfucked is because you are a Muslim whose head is full of ARRF. That is not a pure throwaway insult. I meant something very specific by that. Assuming you read the article, you ought to understand what I meant by that. In your opinion, what did I mean by that?

    2) Yup, should have mentioned Lord Cromer was in charge of the modernization/reformation of Egypt (aka ‘White Man’s Burden’) and thus had intimate knowledge of Muslim people and religion – even if from a completely superior attitude.

    Well, the problem here goes beyond the fact that Lord Cromer is a rather obscure historical figure and that nobody would have any notion of who that is, or why they should give a hoot what this guy says about anything.

    The deeper problem is that you are representing that you are a Muslim who cares very much about his religion, yet you are seemingly unable or afraid to present your own opinion on such a topic. So you start talking about what some obscure historical personage said instead.

    Of course the problem could be this issue that is endemic with people who read too much. They start to have a tendency just to repeat things they read rather than bring any of their own thinking into anything.

    But really, the real, core issue here is that if you believe in your religion and it comes from God, why would that religion, Islam in this case, need some sort of “reformation” to make it compatible with a secular ideology like ARRF? (Or liberal democracy, whatever the hell that really is….) Could you explain your thinking about this issue without making any reference to obscure historical figures like Lord Cromer and what they said? I don’t care what Lord Cromer thought about whatever it is. I’m asking you what you think.

    that’s what Uncles are for.

    Well, the reason I call you Uncle Talha is by analogy with the “Uncle Tom” term that African-Americans use. This a useful concept that is not unique to the American Negro by any means. An Uncle Tom or an Uncle Talha is somebody who feels a greater identification with his people’s oppressors than with his own people. It’s a psychological phenomenon probably related at least somewhat to Stockholm Syndrome.

    You are a sad case. For all of Rehmat’s evident faults, at least that is a Muslim who knows who his enemies are. And he doesn’t feel any pathological need to play kissy kissy with them and simply does not reflect the kind of boot-licking subservience that you feel is your lot, apparently — even on a web forum where you have anonymity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Nephew,

    At the risk of getting more invective from you...

    But really, the real, core issue here is that if you believe in your religion and it comes from God, why would that religion, Islam in this case, need some sort of “reformation” to make it compatible with a secular ideology like ARRF?
     
    It needs no reformation - if you've been reading anything that I have written in my comments then you will know that I have no shame stating; Islam needs no reformation, it is sound and coherent in its beliefs and rock solid in its foundations.

    Muslims would do well to drop the reformation nonsense (which is the problem) and come back to its 14 century-old tradition.

    Peace - you are still invited to Thanksgiving because Uncle Talha loves all his nieces and nephews. I'm going to go stand over there again, because I don't like getting my shirt wet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @utu
    You do not know what you are missing. The Catholic Church is the last redoubt. Still holding though very weakly being infiltrated by forces that want its destruction. The protestant brothers caved in long time ago. Look at Sweden, UK, Netherlands. They are always the first one to cave in to the forces that some call it modernity. Amish and Baptists will follow too when pressure will be increased. The former are left unmolested because they are inconsequential while the latter are tolerated because they are perfectly suited in the role of useful idiots that was written for them by Zionists.

    The Catholic Church is the last redoubt.

    Within a Western European Christian tradition, I think you’re probably right. At least in the big picture. The protestant sects have all gone full blown ARRF for the most part.

    But I think the Eastern Orthodox Church is still traditionalist and anti-ARRF.

    And then there is Islam, which is what is really under attack the most. This whole meme that Islam needs a “reformation” is just code that means that Islam should ARRF-ize. I asked Uncle Talha what he thought of that and he started quoting some obscure 19th century limey. I guess that is to evade giving any real opinion of his own.

    A really ARRF-ized religion is Reform Judaism, with lesbian rabbis and gay marriages and so forth. All the dietary laws are just optional and so on. What I wonder about current-day Reform Judaism is whether it is a branch of Judaism that has been made ARRF compatible or is it best understood as a branch of ARRF with vestigial Judaic elements?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    Do white nationalist types think that Islam is the reason that white European Christians are not having children? I actually am intending to write a follow-up in which I go through a series of issues like this and make the case that the issue is NOT Islam, it’s ARRF.
     
    well, I don't consider myself a 'white nationalist type' per se, but rather just a sane human being lacking racial self-loathing who doesn't want to see my particular phenotype blended out of existence for all time as the final solution to racism - with the uncontrolled and infinite importation of other races and cultures into the lands where my ancestors were forged out of tens of thousands of years of struggle.

    For some incomprehensible reason, (actually it is known and it's called resentment) all white nations are supposed to consider their replacement by Muslims (and Africans and Asians and everyone else) as some kind of no-brainer. And if they have qualms, are pejoratively referred to as "white nationalists" or "white supremacists".

    Do they demand the same thing of Japan, that it open its borders to infinite throngs of non-Japanese, and harangue any Japanese who object as being "Japanese supremacists" or "Japanese nationalists"?

    Do they call the Arabs of Saudi Arabia "Arab supremacists" for preventing unlimited immigration of others into *their* country? No, because they're allowed to have a country of their own, and why not?!

    But when it comes to Sweden or Germany or N. America, all the white people are supposed to kneejerk prostrate themselves before the genocidal demon god of diversity/multiculturalism, filled with so much self-loathing and self-contempt, that they just can't wait until their own race is wiped out and blended away; as has been done in every place where unlimited immigration has been the mantra of the day. No-go areas in England and Sweden and Muslim rape gangs. And if there's a sane person paying attentions, whose spirit and love of his people have not been trampled and ground under by the politically correct armies of SJW and mantras of death and genocide, then it can only mean he must be a Nazi/racist/KKK/white supremacist/white nationalist, blah, blah, blah.

    For a Palestinian to demand that they too have a right to exist and to persevere as a distinct people in their own lands, with their own traditions and culture and identity, is considered laudable and commendable by people both on the left and on the right.

    But for a Swede or Brit or (heavens no), an American- to question the wisdom of importing millions upon millions of people with very little (none) ties to his culture or heritage or traditions, let alone his ethnicity, and he's supposed to hand it all over and beg their forgiveness for his racism and toss his children onto the flaming pyres of multiculturalism for his terrible guilt at being white, is rather incomprehensible to me. And I'd be called a "white nationalist" by these people. Who demand that all white nations open their borders to everyone else.

    It is insane. OK. It isn't hostility to Muslims or Islam, so long as Muslims and Islam stay in their own countries!

    Wondering aloud at the curious antipathy some Europeans or Americans have for Muslims (and everyone else) who are pouring over their/our borders and creating hostility and strife, and scratching your head saying, what's with these 'white nationalist types"? Is the height of arrogance. *Of course!* people want to keep their lands and nations for their children and grandchildren to grow up in and thrive in and prosper in, without tribal hostilities and hatred.

    That is obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain and a shred of respect for even, yes, those evil hated racist white people.

    look at New Zealand or Iceland and the quality of life of those places, and then ask yourself if those people looked at England or the rape capital of the world; Sweden today, and said 'no thanks'- would you call those people 'white nationalists"? Or simply sane people who like their culture and identity and feel no need to see it all destroyed and trampled under with tribal hatreds and strife by importing millions of non-Westerners into their lands?

    It has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with love. A love of one's people and a normal human desire to see your people (whomever they are.. Muslim or Christian or white/black/brown or whatever) thrive and prosper and persevere. Just as you respect all other peoples to feel the same way about their children and culture and yes, ethnicity.

    Rurik, could you please focus on the following question and answer it?

    In terms of the basic issue you are talking about, the eventual disappearance of your “phenotype’ or whatever, which is the bigger problem?

    A. The refugee problem with so many Muslim refugees flooding into Europe.

    B. The fact that in a country like Germany, the average white female has 1.3 children.

    You are answering me as if I am saying that A is not an issue at all. But I am not saying that. I am saying that B is actually the BIGGER issue. Moreover, the reason for A is that the AngloZionists decided to gratuitously destroy all these Muslim countries — Iraq, Libya, Syria…

    Here is another question for you:

    How many Muslims do you think there are in the various European countries at this moment? Consider this article:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/12/14/most-countries-hugely-overestimate-their-muslim-population-infographic/#5e319e762180

    I found the above very striking in terms of just how much people overestimate the size of the Muslim immigrant population, when asked.

    You seem to be very plugged into a very right-wing echo chamber and just be repeating talking points. There is no rape epidemic in these countries, you know. I’ve looked for evidence of this and it’s just not there. I don’t see any travel advisories telling women not to visit Sweden because they’ll get raped and so forth. The notion that Sweden is somehow the “Rape Capital of the World” is just not true.

    THe problem is that this kind of hysterical hyperbole just tends to discredit people because everybody who is not plugged into this right-wing echo chamber knows perfectly well that Sweden is not the “Rape Capital of the World”. These statements are so overblown that people with your viewpoint just tend to discredit yourselves. Can’t you see that? Apparently not, but you should try to.

    Now, okay, there are surely cases, but so much of this just turns out to be a hoaxes in the end. They say that last year at New Years, there was all this mass raping going on in the Cologne train station. Well, where’s the video footage? Everybody has a video camera in their pockets. How can there not be any video footage?

    https://www.rt.com/news/353911-cologne-woman-rape-allegations/

    Or there was this woman Marcia Adair who was in the Cologne railway station when all this mass raping was going on, and she didn’t see anything! How is that possible?

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/i-was-in-cologne-on-new-years-theres-a-reason-to-be-afraid-and-its-because-of-other-peoples-fear

    Or consider:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/teenage-girl-made-up-migrant-claim-that-caused-uproar-in-germany

    Rurik, you’re just letting them play you a fiddle with this stuff. Okay, there are surely some cases of crimes, but the high profile ones, as I see it, pretty much invariably turn out to be hoaxes. The whole story that Swedish or German girls are getting raped right left and center by mobs of swarthy Arab men — this doesn’t seem to be happening. It’s just a racist fantasy that goes into some echo chamber really.

    You express admiration for my articles but then you don’t seem to understand key parts of them. The part in this article about being “Partially Pregnant” — it’s about taking one issue and not being able to connect the dots and see the whole thing. The bigger issue with what I call ARRF is the cratering of the birth rate. Even if you reduce immigration to zero, you’re not going to solve the problem if the average white woman has 1.3 children!

    Can’t you see that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Even if you reduce immigration to zero, you’re not going to solve the problem if the average white woman has 1.3 children!"

    Sure you can. A nation's population doesn't need to expand without any limit, nor can it. Even a numerically smaller European population can defend their borders if they have the will to do it.

    By the way - do you favor reducing immigration into western lands?

    I hope everyone here has taken notice of what appears to be one of Revusky's actual agendas - apologizing for the often loathesome behavior of muslim invaders in the West.

    Do you think Rotherham was a "hoax" too?

    And, why all of a sudden to you consider mainstream media sources like the National Post and the Guardian to be trustworthy on this matter that is evidently so near and dear to you?

    , @Rurik
    Hey JR,

    disappearance of your “phenotype’ or whatever, which is the bigger problem?

    A. The refugee problem with so many Muslim refugees flooding into Europe.

    B. The fact that in a country like Germany, the average white female has 1.3 children.
     

    I like the idea of a reduced number of sheer humans. I think there's too many of us, and I'd be all for us returning the planet t0 a more pristine condition with a resurgent wild fauna. I suspect life is more satisfying when we share it with more of nature, rather than less.

    So obviously I'm not too concerned about the low birthrates. And consider the entire problem one of a mass spiritual castration of Western peoples