The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Thomas Dalton Archive
On the True Meaning of Hate Speech
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.”
—Joseph Goebbels, diary (April 19, 1943)[1]Reprinted in Goebbels on the Jews (2019; T. Dalton, ed), p. 199. This and most other books cited below are available at www.clemensandblair.com.

‘Hate’ is such an ugly word. And such a juvenile word. It calls to mind the stereotypical eight-year-old girl who screams “I hate you!” to her mother when she is not allowed to join the local sleep-over. The word is most often used half-jokingly—“I hate the Yankees!”, “I hate broccoli!”, etc.—or to describe some detested task (“I hate cleaning the bathroom”). Or it can be used for rhetorical effect. But the use of the term in the context of ‘hate speech’ is silly, juvenile, and formally meaningless. We may dislike someone or some group, or be repulsed by them, or wish to dissociate from them. But to hate them? Seriously—what mature individual today is willing to openly and earnestly say “I hate you” to anyone? Only a highly insecure or severely distressed person would do such a thing. It’s a sign of weakness.

And yet today, hate seems to be the ethos of the moment. More specifically, we seem to be surrounded by talk of ‘hate speech’ in the mass media. To judge by various headlines and liberal pundits, hate speech would appear to be among the greatest dangers of modern existence—on par with racism and “White supremacy,” and greater than political corruption, international terrorism, global pandemics, financial instability, environmental decline, overpopulation, or uncontrollable industrial technology. Most European countries have legal prohibitions against various forms of hate speech, however ill-defined, as do Canada and Australia. Even in the US there is increasing pressure to create legal sanction for some such concept, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

I take this whole topic very personally. It’s no secret that I’ve written harshly against Jews and other minorities. It’s no secret that I prefer living in a White community and a White nation. I have no need to apologize for any of this. And yet, for these very reasons, some people find it appropriate to call me a ‘hater’: “Dalton hates the Jews”; “he hates Blacks,” “he hates Latinos,” etc., etc. But I state here, for the record, that nothing is further from the truth. I hate no one. I may dislike certain people, I may find them malevolent and malicious, I may want them punished, and I may want to separate myself from them; but this does not mean that I hate them. In this era of “hate crimes” and “hate speech laws,” this requires some explanation.

As usual, we should start by knowing what we are talking about. What, exactly, is it to ‘hate’? The word has ancient origins, deriving from the Indo-European kədes and Greek kedos. Originally, and surprisingly, it meant simply ‘strong feelings’ in a neutral sense, rather than something negative. In fact, the Old Irish word caiss includes both love and hate. But the negative connotation emerged with the Germanic khatis (later, hass), the Dutch haat, and eventually became ingrained in the English ‘hate.’

The standard dictionary definition typically runs something like this: “intense or extreme dislike, aversion, or hostility” toward someone or something. As such, the word is fairly innocuous; I can hate my job, hate asparagus, and even hate my boss. But this is not at issue. We are more concerned about hate as a mindset, and specifically as oriented toward classes of people, or increasingly, toward certain privileged ideologies.

But we immediately confront a major problem here: Hate is a feeling, and feelings are indelibly subjective. And anything that is completely subjective cannot be quantified in objective terms. No one can say with certainty that “Dalton hates X.” Only I can say, “I hate X,” precisely because it is my own feeling. If there is one thing that I insist upon, it is complete sovereignty over my own feelings. No one else will ever dictate how I feel about anything.

And even if I say “I hate X,” how does anyone else know that I really feel the hatred? They don’t. Maybe I’m being sarcastic. Maybe I’m joking. Maybe I’m just trying to cause a stir. No one will ever know my actual feelings except me—precisely because they are my own. No one will ever know if I am expressing “real” hatred, or just pretending. (Does that even matter?)

The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense. Therefore, the corresponding concept of ‘hate speech,’ viewed as the expression of hatred, likewise melts into thin air. It is, technically, an incoherent concept when put forth as a basis for law. This fact, of course, does not stop corrupt lawmakers around the globe from trying to enforce it, though for very different reasons, as I will explain.

So, let’s take a look at how some attempt to define the indefinable. Here is one interesting definition from the Cambridge Dictionary: hate speech is

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)

This is a hugely problematic definition, on several grounds. First, how public is ‘public’? If I tell my neighbor, is that public? If I publish something in a private chat room, is that public? What if I mumble something aloud to a friend while in a shopping mall? Am I responsible if a private email to a colleague gets reposted online? And so on.

Second: it involves the “expression of hate,” or “encouragement of violence.” These are two vastly different things. ‘Expression of hate’ is, as I said, functionally meaningless. What, exactly, does it take for something to qualify as an “expression of hate”? Presumably if I say “I hate X,” that counts. But what else? Does “I really, really, really dislike X” count? Does “I’d like to see X die” count? What about “I’d like to see X get very ill”? Does “X is a total scumbag” count? We can see the problems. Incitement to violence is somewhat less ambiguous, but still problematic. Who, for example, is to judge ‘encouragement’? This is another highly subjective term. And how much violence is necessary to qualify? Is a good shove violent? A pie in the face? Tripping someone? Is ‘emotional distress’ violence? What about financial loss?

Third, we notice that it’s not violence per se, but rather violence “based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.” This is very odd. What does the phrase “something such as” mean here? The qualifiers mentioned are usually assumed to be intrinsic to the person or group (race, gender)—except that religion, and even sexual orientation, can be changed at the drop of a hat. Therefore, the qualities need not be intrinsic. So what, exactly, is this mysterious criteria, this “something such as,” that is so crucial for the whole concept?

The point here is that the whole notion of ‘hate speech,’ like hate itself, dissolves into a subjective void. In objective terms, it is virtually meaningless. How, then, can be it be subject to the force of law?

The UN Takes a Shot

As if they don’t have enough on their plate already, the United Nations is now highly distressed by the spread of hate speech around the world. Recently, in May 2019, they issued a short statement called “Strategy and plan of action on hate speech.” It included this observation:

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. In the context of this document, the term ‘hate speech’ is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are—in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. This is often rooted in, and generates, intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

The key phrases here: “controversial and disputed” (obviously), “any kind of communication” (very broad), “pejorative or discriminatory language” (highly subjective and undefined), and “on the basis of who they are” (mostly intrinsic factors, except for nationality and religion, and possibly “other identity factors”). And then we read the subsequent explanatory paragraph:

Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’). Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes. Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.

So, hate speech per se is not to be prohibited, but rather only a special kind of hate speech—“inciteful (to violence) hate speech.” In other words, only the worst of the worst, apparently. Clarification and elaboration would soon follow.

Also, the Foreword to the statement reveals something of the deeper motives at work here. We find, in the opening paragraph, references to “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazis,” and the dreaded “White supremacy.” Strange how we inevitably find such terms in any discussion of hate speech; more on this below.

Evidently dissatisfied with this short statement, the UN issued a 52-page “detailed guidance” report, under the same name, in September 2020. Here they establish three levels of hate speech: 1) the worst kind: “direct and public incitement to violence” (including to genocide), 2) a grey zone of hate speech to be prohibited based on “legitimate aims” and only as “necessary and proportionate”, and 3) an unrestricted and lawful form that may still be “offensive, shocking, or disturbing.” Level One (“Incitement”) hate speech in turn is based on, and determined by, six conditions:

  1. social and political context
  2. status of the speaker (!)
  3. intention of the speaker (!)
  4. form and content of the speech
  5. extent of dissemination
  6. likelihood of harm

Level One Hate must satisfy all six criteria, meaning (presumably): a sensitive time or social context, an influential or important speaker, bad intent, provocative style, widely disseminated, and with reasonable probability of harm. Again, all six are required, for Level One status. Levels Two and Three may meet some, or none, of these. The six criteria are elaborated on pages 17 and 18 of the report.

Later in the document we find an interesting admission: “The terms ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’ should be understood to refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity, and detestation towards the target group” (p. 13). This is actually quite a relief; any opposition to Jews or other minorities, if rational and non-emotional (e.g., fact-based) cannot count as hate speech! Therefore, writings by scholars, academics, or other serious researchers, who build a case based on facts, history, and plausible inference, are under no circumstances engaging in hate speech. This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.

We (some of us, at least) get further relief on the following page, where we read that Level Three (allowable) Hate includes not only “expression that is offensive, shocking, or disturbing” but also covers “denial of historical events, including crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity.” As the UN sees it, so-called Holocaust denial is permissible, or at least non-punishable, hate speech.[2]For the record, I am no denier. I believe that there was a Holocaust of the mid-20th century: it was called World War Two, and some 60 million people died as a result of Jewish-instigated actions both here and in Europe. Jewish fatalities seem to have numbered around 500,000, according to the major revisionists. For more on these issues, see my books The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). And in Figure 4 they go further still, stating that Level Three hate “must be PROTECTED” as a form of free expression. This is a remarkable concession. Ah, but there’s a catch: “unless such forms of expression also constitute incitement to hostility, discrimination, or violence under article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” This document, written in 1966 and made effective in 1976, includes these words under article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” So it would seem that, for example, Holocaust “denial” (whatever that means) is not prohibited as long as it avoids any connection to “incitement” of any kind. Presumably discussing it as a historical subject is fine; just don’t implicate anyone today who promotes, exploits, or profits from the conventional Holocaust story.

“It’s always about the Jews!”

So, let’s get down to the rub. I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward: Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews. (Oops—is that hate speech?) That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit. I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people. They have furthermore learned how to project their hatred onto others in service of their own ends, including by trickery and deception. Let me marshal whatever evidence I can, mostly implicit, to build a case for this hypothesis.

Start with a little history of Jews and hatred. Perhaps the first explicit connection came way back in 300 BC, in a short writing by Hecateus of Abdera titled “On the Jews.” Only two fragments remain, one of which is relevant: As a result of the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic (apanthropon) and hostile to foreigners”.[3]Eternal Strangers (2020; T. Dalton, ed), p. 16. It is striking that, even at that early date, the Jews had a reputation for misanthropy—a hatred of humanity. The same theme recurs in 134 BC, when King Antiochus VII was advised “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy.” The king’s counselor cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.”[4]Emilio Gabba, “The growth of anti-Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 2, 1984; Cambridge University Press), p. 645. Not only was their hatred notable, so too was the fact that it was “they alone, among all peoples”; the Jews were exceptional haters, it seems.

It is worth further expanding on the idea that Jewish hatred is “sanctioned by their very laws”—by which they mean, the Old Testament. We know, of course, that the Jews viewed themselves as “chosen” by the creator of the universe: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6). Clearly, then, everyone else is second-best. We also know that God supposedly gave the Jews a kind of dominion over the other nations of the Earth. The Book of Exodus states, “we [Jews] are distinct…from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16). Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Num 23:9). In Deuteronomy (15:6), Moses tells the Jews “you shall rule over many nations”; “they shall be afraid of you” (28:10). There is Genesis: “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (27:29); or Deuteronomy, where God promises Jews “houses full of all good things, which [they] did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which [they] did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which [they] did not plant” (6:11). And outside the Pentateuch, we can read in Isaiah: “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you…that men may bring you the wealth of the nations” (60:10–11); or again, “aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…you shall eat the wealth of the nations” (61:5–6). What is this but explicit misanthropy, sanctioned by God, and sustained “by their very laws”?

Around 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote Historical Library where, in the course of discussing the Exodus, he observes that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (34,1). A few decades later, Lysimachus remarked that the Hebrew tribe was instructed by Moses “to show good will to no man” and to offer only “the worse advice” to others. And in the early years of the Christian era, the writer Apion commented on the Jewish tendency “to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks.”[5]Eternal Strangers, pp. 19, 21, and 25, respectively. Again, repeated observations of Jewish hatred toward Gentile humanity.

The most insightful ancient critique, though, comes from Roman historian Tacitus. His works Histories (100 AD) and Annals (115 AD) both record highly damning observations on the Hebrew tribe. In the former, the Jews are described as “a race of men hateful to the gods” (genus hominum invisium deis, V.3). Somewhat later, he remarks that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity” (hostile odium, V.5). But his most famous line comes from his later work, Annals. There he examines the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, and Nero’s reaction to it. Nero, says Tacitus, pinned the blame in part on the Christians and Jews—“a class of men loathed for their vices.” The Jews “were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race” (odio humani generis, XV.44). Clearly this was the decisive factor, certainly in Tacitus’ eyes and perhaps in all of Rome: that the Jewish odio humani generis, hatred of humanity, was a sufficient crime to banish and even slay them.

I could go on, but the message is clear: The ancient world viewed the Jews as exceptional haters. I could also cite, for example, Philostratus circa 230 AD (“The Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against all humanity”) or Porphyry circa 280 AD (The Jews are “the impious enemies of all nations”)—but the point is made.

Importantly, this impression carried on for centuries in Europe, into the Renaissance, the Reformation, and even through to the present day. Martin Luther’s monumental work On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) includes this passage: “Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father [the Devil], yes, what a fine people of God they are. They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people.”[6]On the Jews and Their Lies (2020, T. Dalton, ed; Clemens & Blair), p. 53. Two centuries later, circa 1745, Jean-Baptiste de Mirabaud wrote that “The Jews…were hated because they were known to hate other men.”[7]Eternal Strangers, p. 68. And then we have Voltaire’s entry on “Jews” in his famous Philosophical Dictionary, which reads as follows:

It is certain that the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen, and…in a political view, the most contemptible of all. … It is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other nations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more likely that the manner in which they, at the first, exterminated some of the tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations conceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion. As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that, in abhorring them, they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men. … In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.[8]Eternal Strangers, pp. 70-71.

British historian Edward Gibbon stated the following in his classic work of 1788, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The Jews…emerged from obscurity…and multiplied to a surprising degree. … The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of human-kind.[9]The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788/1974, vol. 2; AMS Press), p. 3. See also Eternal Strangers, p. 59.

A similar observation came from the pen of German philosopher Johann Fichte in 1793:

Throughout almost all the countries of Europe, a mighty hostile state is spreading that is at perpetual war with all other states, and in many of them imposes fearful burdens on the citizens: it is the Jews. I don’t think, as I hope to show subsequently, that this state is fearful—not because it forms a separate and solidly united state, but because this state is founded on the hatred of the whole human race…[10]Eternal Strangers, p. 78.

Who, then, are the master haters in all of history?

Particularly striking are the words of Nietzsche. A long series of negative comments on the Jews began in 1881 with his book Daybreak, where he observes in passing (sec. 377) that “The command ‘love your enemies’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been.” So it would seem that the Jews are truly best at something after all: hatred. Then in The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche sarcastically notes that the Jews are indeed ‘chosen’ people, precisely because “they had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people” (sec. 136).

But the most stunning discourse appears in Nietzsche’s work of 1887, On the Genealogy of Morals, where he offers a detailed analysis of hatred from the Judeo-Christian perspective. In short, Jewish hatred is manifested most visibly in their rabbis, religious men, and their priests. Sanctioned by God, priestly hate is the deepest and most profound; it is the hatred of those without tangible power. Jewish hatred then metastasized in Christianity, taking form as its nominal opposite, namely, love. The First Essay is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy; I quote it at length:

As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. The really great haters in world history and the most spiritual haters have always been priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge, all the remaining spirits are generally hardly worth considering.

Let us quickly consider the greatest example. Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge. In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)… (sec. 7)

But you fail to understand that? You have no eye for something that needed two millennia to emerge victorious? … That’s nothing to wonder at: all lengthy things are hard to see, to assess. However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown?

However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred! No: the reverse is the truth! This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth. This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Jewish values and innovations in ideals? (sec. 8)

On this view, Christian ‘love’ grows out of Jewish ‘hate,’ like the crown of the tree from its roots. The Jews (and Paul specifically), the master haters, purveyors of the “deepest and most sublime hatred” that has ever existed, created the idea of a saviour who loves everyone. They did so as cover for their hatred of humanity, and as an enticement into their Jewish-inspired worldview—one of a Jewish man-god (Jesus), of Jehovah the Almighty, of heaven and hell. These destructive and nihilistic “values and innovations” could only be foisted upon a humanity that was detested. Christianity was thus the greatest manifestation of Jewish hatred ever conceived.

Nietzsche summarizes his thesis concisely in section 16:

In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.” And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.

The nihilistic Christian values—based on a mythical God and an unknowable and perhaps nonexistent future life—managed to undermine and ultimately displace the superior Greco-Roman values that had flourished for 800 years and created the foundation of all of Western civilization. Only an overthrow of Judeo-Christianity and a return to classic, aristocratic values can save humanity at this point. The quoted passage refers, of course, to Tacitus.

We can’t leave the Genealogy without brief mention of a fascinating and humorous allegory on hatred that Nietzsche offers in section 13. There he compares the situation between lowly (Judeo-Christian) haters and the strong and noble (Roman) aristocrats to the opposition that might exist between baby lambs and some nasty predator (Raubvogel), like an eagle. The lambs are innocently and peacefully munching grass in a field, but live in constant fear of a predator who may, at any time, swoop in and snatch them up. The weak lambs are haters; they hate those birds of prey. But the noble eagles don’t hate at all. Nietzsche explains:

But let’s come back: the problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has imagined it for himself, demands its own conclusion. —That the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey. And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb—shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting-up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs. We even love them. Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.”

The noble don’t hate; they rule and dominate. Only the weak hate. The weak haters furthermore seek to portray the strong and noble in the harshest possible terms: “evil,” “killers,” “sinners.” But this is ludicrous, of course. The strong are just doing what is appropriate to their nature. The haters might then try to confuse the strong, to guilt them into changing their behavior, to get them to become ‘weak’ and ‘good’ like the haters themselves. But this would be the death of them, just as a life of munching grass—so pleasant for a lamb—would mean death for an eagle. Nietzsche emphasizes this very point:

[I]t’s no wonder that the repressed, secretly smouldering feelings of rage and hate use this belief for themselves, and basically even maintain a faith in nothing more fervently than in the idea that the strong are free to be weak and that predatory birds are free to be lambs: —in so doing, they arrogate to themselves the right to blame the birds of prey for being birds of prey.

Today, weak and lowly haters—Jews, Jewish-inspired Christians, and Jewish lackeys in the media—have been working hard to convince the strong and noble that they are bad, evil, bigoted, racist, and supremacist. And to the extent that they have succeeded, it has been the death of noble humanity. We must resist this tendency with all our might.

Hate Speech in the Twentieth Century

With growing wealth and financial clout, and with a 2,000-year history of skill in hatred under their belts, organized Jewry began to press the case for legal sanctions against their opponents. With the flood of Jewish immigrants around the turn of the century, it is perhaps not surprising that Jewish legal advocacy took hold in the US. In the first two decades, a number of major pro-Jewish groups emerged, including the American Jewish Committee (1906), the Anti-Defamation League (1913), the American Jewish Congress (1918), and the American Civil Liberties Union (1920). All these groups were de facto anti-hate speech advocates, even if the federal legal apparatus did not really exist at that point. Their focus was on so-called “group libel,” a novel legal concept that was formulated specifically to benefit Jewish interests.

Meanwhile, across the ocean, Jews were making better legal progress in the proto-Soviet Union. The rise of Jewish Bolsheviks from around 1900, including Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, brought a new concern with anti-Semitism to the Russian Empire. When they took power in the February Revolution of 1917, they immediately set to work to make life better for Russian Jews. Pinkus (1990) explains that these Bolsheviks “issued a decree annulling all legal restrictions on Jews” in March 1917.[11]Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union (1990; Cambridge University Press), p. 84. He adds that, unsurprisingly, “Even before the October [1917] Revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were hostile to anti-Semitism. Lenin castigated it in the strongest terms on a number of occasions.” As soon as July 1918, the Soviet Council issued a decree (though without legal enforcement) stating that “the anti-Semitic movement and the anti-Jewish pogroms are a deadly menace to the Revolution”; all Soviet workers are called upon “to fight this plague with all possible means”.[12]In Pinkus, p. 85. Lenin himself continued to press his pro-Jewish propaganda; in one short but notable speech of March 1919, he said:

Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed Czarist monarchy was living its last days, it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The Czarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. … Shame on accursed Czarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

As (non-Jew) Joseph Stalin rose to power in the 1920s, he found it expedient to continue working with the Soviet Jews and generally defended their status. Consequently, that decade became a sort of ‘golden age’ for Jews; it saw the emergence of the likes of Lazar Kaganovich, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Leonid Krasin, Filipp Goloshchekin, and Yakov Agranov—all high-ranking Jews in the Soviet hierarchy.[13]The parallels to the Biden regime are striking; see my recent piece “Confronting the Judeocracy.” Partly because of this governmental dominance, anti-Semitism among the Russian masses continued to percolate. Eventually, “in 1927, a decision was reached to take drastic steps to repress anti-Semitism.”[14]Pinkus, p. 86. Various forms of propaganda were employed, including books, pamphlets, plays, and films; the process culminated in harsh legal action against anti-Jewish hate, up to and including the death penalty. Stalin confirmed this in writing in 1931:

Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism. In the USSR, anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law, active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.

The Jewish Golden Age in the Soviet Union lasted until the late 1930s, when Stalin inaugurated a retrenchment of Jewish power, apparently in response to the National Socialist stance.[15]Postwar, Stalin’s purging of high-ranking Jews accelerated, resulting in a decade-long period of virtual state-sponsored anti-Semitism, ending only with Stalin’s death in 1953.

But the Soviet (and Bolshevik) philo-Semitic policies of the 1920s and 1930s were not lost on Hitler. He and Goebbels were relentless, and justified, in their critiques of “Jewish Bolshevism” as a dominant threat to Germany and Europe. Goebbels in particular noted the growing push for ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws in defense of Jews in both the USSR and the UK; for him, this was proof of (a) a deep-seated and imminent mass uprising against the Jews, and (b) an over-playing of their legal authority. Anti-hate laws are a sign of desperation; they indicate that the end-game is near. In a revealing diary entry of 19 April 1943, Goebbels writes:

The Jews in England are now calling for legal protection against anti-Semitism. We know that from our own past, in the times of struggle. But even that didn’t give them much advantage. We’ve always understood how to find gaps in these protective laws; and moreover, anti-Semitism, once it rises from the depths of the people, cannot be broken by law. A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews. We will make sure that anti-Semitism in England does not cool down. In any case, a longer-lasting war is the best breeding ground for it.[16]Goebbels on the Jews, p. 199.

The following month, in his published essay “The War and the Jews,” Goebbels commented on the legal situation in the USSR—the very law that Stalin described above, and that was still in force some 13 years later:

We constantly hear news that anti-Semitism is increasing in enemy nations. The charges being made against the Jews are well-known; they are the same ones that were made here. Anti-Semitism in enemy nations is not the result of anti-Semitic propaganda, since Jewry fights that strongly. In the Soviet Union, it receives the death penalty.[17]Ibid., pp. 206-207.
(Goebbels on the Jews, p. 199.)

The status of anti-Semitic hate speech laws was of importance to Goebbels right to the very end. In his last major essay, “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” (1945), he reiterated the significance of the Soviet law:

Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots—two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see: it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.

There’s a law in the Soviet Union that punishes ‘anti-Semitism’—or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question—by death. Any expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the Earth under legal protection, and to use the death penalty to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt. It is little different in the plutocratic [Western] nations.

Even at the bitter end, this theme still impressed Goebbels. In one of his final diary entries, he wrote:

The Jews have already registered for the San Francisco Conference [on post-war plans]. It is characteristic that their main demand is to ban anti-Semitism throughout the world. Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them.[18]4 April 1945, in Goebbels on the Jews, p. 255.

And indeed, they have succeeded, at least in part. The postwar German Volksverhetzung and the Austrian Verbotsgesetz both stand as among the most embarrassing legal capitulations to Jewish interests in the Western world.

Thus we clearly see the origins of hate speech legislation in the twentieth century: it was first constructed by Jews and their sycophants (like Stalin), both in the US and in the Soviet Union, to quell any looming opposition to their power structure. So intent were they on stifling objection to Jewish rule that they were willing to kill those who opposed them.

To the Present Day

With the growing dominance of Jewish influence in American government over the past five decades, and ongoing influence in Europe, calls to restrict and punish any anti-Jewish commentary via hate speech laws have become ever more strident. The U.S. government—or at least the Republicans—have so far mostly resisted such efforts, but social media has come around to the philosemitic stance. Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, Twitter, and Google-owned YouTube, have all taken it upon themselves to censor hate speech, especially of the anti-Semitic variety. Google has altered its search algorithms to de-rank offensive and “hate” sites. All this is perfectly understandable, given the huge Jewish presence atop Big Tech; we need only mention Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Sheryl Sandberg, Safra Katz, Susan Wojcicki, Steve Ballmer, Brian Roberts, Marc Benioff, Craig Newmark, and Jeff Weiner, for starters.

Parallel to Big Tech censorship, Jewish advocacy groups like the SPLC and the ADL continue to press civil cases against those ‘haters’ who they believe have violated the rights or reputation of some aggrieved party. The SPLC has a section of its website dedicated to “anti-Semitism and hate speech,” and the ADL—well, that’s their raison d’etre. Third-party lawsuits and tech censorship serve the purpose of implementing de facto pro-Jewish hate speech policies, at least within the U.S.

Conclusion

But to come full circle: I began this piece with a discussion about the logical vagueness and incoherence of the concept of hate speech. Clearly, though, many powerful, Jewish-inspired corporations and politicians find the concept useful. For them, in the most basic and practical terms, it becomes quite simple: Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate. Yes, they may claim to hate anti-Muslim speech or anti-Black speech, but this is so only because it is a necessary corollary to anti-Jewish hate speech. The Jews are not so stupid today as to push for uniquely Jewish, “anti-anti-Semitism” laws; those are a thing of the past. Today, such laws require cover language that, at least in theory, includes other “oppressed” groups. Jews and their defenders must appear universal and fair—when in reality most seem to have utter contempt for virtually all non-Jewish groups (there’s that “hatred of humanity” again). Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.

Consider: If you hate what I say, who’s the hater? It’s you, not me. The fact that you may not like what I’m saying does not make me a hater. It makes you the hater. And if you happen to be a champion, master-class, world-historical hater, well then—it’s all hate to you.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com. For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

Notes

[1] Reprinted in Goebbels on the Jews (2019; T. Dalton, ed), p. 199. This and most other books cited below are available at www.clemensandblair.com.

[2] For the record, I am no denier. I believe that there was a Holocaust of the mid-20th century: it was called World War Two, and some 60 million people died as a result of Jewish-instigated actions both here and in Europe. Jewish fatalities seem to have numbered around 500,000, according to the major revisionists. For more on these issues, see my books The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).

[3] Eternal Strangers (2020; T. Dalton, ed), p. 16.

[4] Emilio Gabba, “The growth of anti-Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 2, 1984; Cambridge University Press), p. 645.

[5] Eternal Strangers, pp. 19, 21, and 25, respectively.

[6] On the Jews and Their Lies (2020, T. Dalton, ed; Clemens & Blair), p. 53.

[7] Eternal Strangers, p. 68.

[8] Eternal Strangers, pp. 70-71.

[9] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788/1974, vol. 2; AMS Press), p. 3. See also Eternal Strangers, p. 59.

[10] Eternal Strangers, p. 78.

[11] Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union (1990; Cambridge University Press), p. 84.

[12] In Pinkus, p. 85.

[13] The parallels to the Biden regime are striking; see my recent piece “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[14] Pinkus, p. 86.

[15] Postwar, Stalin’s purging of high-ranking Jews accelerated, resulting in a decade-long period of virtual state-sponsored anti-Semitism, ending only with Stalin’s death in 1953.

[16] Goebbels on the Jews, p. 199.

[17] Ibid., pp. 206-207.

[18] 4 April 1945, in Goebbels on the Jews, p. 255.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 287 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The Nietzschean stuff is drivel. How can an intelligent person read those paragraphs and think they make sense?
    Jews hate people so they invented an anti-Jewish religion of love?

    • Disagree: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @RockaBoatus
    , @moi
    , @R2b
    , @saggy
  2. Challenging the left’s meaning of hate is racist.

  3. “Hate Speech” can be anything they want it to be. It’s the legal plasticene that totalitarian legal prosecutors use to silence their critics. It harkens back to the days of the star chambers in medieval times or the anti-revolutionary courts in the early Soviet era. In them you’re charged with treason against the king, anti-revoltionary activity or hate speech. They’re all one and the same, the only difference is the times and the wording. It means the individual has no rights, no legal defence. Once you’re charged with one of these crimes, it goes straight to sentencing. The people around Biden have been drooling for powers like these all their lives and now their in power, they can finally implement them.

  4. Seriously,imagine,what a wonderful world it could be…

    Haters hate,it’s what they do.It’s what they think is right.It replicates,infinitely.

    It’s m.o. is insecurity,idolatry and ignorance.We are inside of a giant fried pickle.

    If we don’t put an end to this,it will put an end to us.Good luck…

  5. 21st paragraph, discussing UN 52-page manual on hate, this statement, on Level three hate:

    “denial of historical events, including crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity.”

    Does Omission of discussion of crimes against humanity amount to denial of historical events?

    Is lying about the Nazis hate speech?

    For example, if the deliberate, planned, rehearsed and performed sustained aerial bombing of (Axis) civilians in Europe; or the mass rapes of German women that followed the German surrender http://www.wearswar.com/2021/07/02/savage-victors-the-greatest-mass-rape-of-a-defeated-occupied-nation-in-history/ are NOT included in classroom lectures or textbook material on World War II, does that amount to “denial of historical events”, a Category Three crime of hate speech?

    (Although — iirc Stalin’s propagandist Ilya Ehrenberg prepared and distributed leaflets promoting/propagandizing the acts — incitements to violence, Level One hate speech. In a Great Courses series on the Cultural History of Russia, presenter Lynn Ann Hartnett offered fulsome praise for (other) activities of Ehrenberg but did not mention his incitement-to-violence leaflets. Is that omission, that white-washing of history, Level three hate speech?)

    • Agree: Schuetze
  6. This article is very good. Some say “israel” has no right to exist in Palestine. Some say Jews run Hollywood. Some say “israelis” are spying on the US. But none of that demonstrates that the sayer hates. Perhaps the ultimate illogic appears when a Jew questions the Holocaust, the gas chambers, and the Weasel, and is charged with being a “self-hating Jew”. Where’s the sense in that?

    • Replies: @Blackstone
  7. anonymous[889] • Disclaimer says:

    Thanks for focusing on the law. So much of this topic is just morons repeating slogans. The hate speech definition is in fact trying to do a good thing: implement Article 19’s sensible position that the real danger is state-sponsored hate speech. Who gives a shit what Joe Blow types in fury on his couch? Nobody, in law.

    Now when states start demonizing nuclear-armed Russia, we got a problem. War propaganda is the essence of hate speech, and the US made a reservation to Article 20 on first amendment grounds (unnecessarily, aince Article 19 is a better counterpoise,) because the government wants to keep up the war propaganda.

    Izzie hate hasbara is one more illegal act, namely human rights distortion.

  8. BuelahMan says:

    Likely one of the best articles I’ve ever read at Unz.

    • Agree: beavertales, Robin Hood
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  9. @SolontoCroesus

    I haven’t yet read the article by John Wear you reference, but I did read Thomas Goodrich’s “Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany,” which makes similar observations. The porn of war turns men into animals. In reading it, I became physically sick.

    Goodrich’s truth is never taught nor acknowledged in our schools and universities. All they are taught is that the “Holocaust” is the worst thing that has ever happened, and that Hitler was the most evil man in history. No one is taught about Dresden (which I only discovered after reading the novel “Slaughterhouse-Five”), nor about the attempted genocide visited upon the German survivors after the war. A complete victory for Jews, who won Israel as their prize, and who, in triumph, are forcing their form of anti-Semitic “Hate Speech” upon our crumbling Republic.

    Indeed, why isn’t lying about the Nazi’s “hate speech,” when it’s hate speech to question if 6 million died in the “Holocaust?” Another fine piece of scholarship by the brave Thomas Dalton, who has opened my mind to many hidden historical truths I’d never known about before. Thanks to Ron Unz for giving him a platform.

  10. TG says:
    @Joe Paluka

    Yes, agree, kudos!

    “Hate speech” is whatever the rich and powerful don’t want said.

    It’s not about logic or reason or justice, it’s about power.

  11. bookmarked your article for future reference, thank you for writing this.

  12. Anon[401] • Disclaimer says:

    “The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. they wandered through the country everywhere, hating and undermining the Christian faith.”
    ~St. Justin

    “The Messiah will return only once. Edom — Europe, christianity — will be completely destroyed. So, I ask you, is it good that Islam invades Europe? It is excellent news! It means the coming of the Messiah…Islam is the broom of Israel.”
    ~Rabbi Rav David Touitou

    “The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots:
    Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural
    and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail;
    thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.”
    ~Henry Kissinger, Oikonomikos Tachydromos Magazine on 14 Aug. l997, while addressing a group of Washington, D.C. businessmen in Sept.1974.

    • Replies: @Josh Kenn
    , @Triteleia Laxa
  13. Anon[294] • Disclaimer says:

    Excellent essay.
    Regarding those who subscribe to the belief of Judaism, we should remember:
    Having been kicked out of over 100 countries throughout history, there MUST be a reason!

  14. Thanks for this instructive article. For readers desiring more information, two good general introductions to the ascendancy of Xpianity in the west are Nixey’s The Darkening Age, The Christian Destruction of the Classical World (Houghton Mifflin, 2018) and Freeman’s The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (Vintage, 2005).

    To justify the horrors they inflicted on the innocent, Christians later concocted an elaborate fable of their torment by pagans. A well-documented corrective to this legend is Moss’ The Myth of Persecution, How Early Christians Invented A Story of Martyrdom (HarperOne, 2013).

    It’s one of history’s greatest ironies that Christianity, given its traditional Jew-hatred, was the vehicle by which the ethnocentrism, misogyny and homophobia of second temple period Judaism were spread across the globe, at a terrible cost in human misery. Another irony is that the faith absorbed many diverse theologies current in the eastern Roman world during its formative period. Accordingly, Christians believe in virgin birth, divine paternity, a hero returned from the dead after three days in the underworld (the primeval winter solstice cycle), and everlasting bliss in a postmortem life. These are all pagan dogmas, which the actual fundamentalist nationalist Jesus would certainly have condemned as abominable heresies.

    Christianity to me is a spiritual Big Mac: it can satisfy your hunger but it does not nourish you. It impoverishes you by sating your instinctual yearning for transcendence with a value system that is so rigidly judgmental and dualistic that it forms a well nigh impenetrable barrier to true self-awareness and serenity. Plus, as the Red Queen said, it demands you believe six impossible things before breakfast.

  15. I don’t have a problem with other people expressing their ‘Hate’ (however conceived), I just want to be free to express my ‘Hate’ too. As it is, only racially-aware Whites and ‘right-wingers’ are scandalized, shamed, and threatened with unemployment if they dare to state ‘naughty’ truths in a public forum.

    Jews disproportionately influence and control all of our nation’s media outlets (whether it’s nightly news, print news, social media, including Hollywood and academia), and they make sure to prohibit and penalize anyone (mostly Whites) who expresses contrary opinions – especially if they get too close to recognizing the yarmulke-wearing Wizard pulling the strings behind the curtain.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Corvinus
  16. I’ll tell you what I HATE……I HATE what the small hats have done to me with their tribal BULLSHIT…..that fucks things up for EVERYBODY.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Johnny Rico
  17. @follyofwar

    Speech? The US Army didn’t just talk hate, it walked it! The Germans focused on bombing military targets, but the Allies focused on killing civilians, and killed 20 times more, even in 1945 when it was obvious the war was won.

  18. @Wignat is a slur

    I like Thomas Dalton. He has written several outstanding works exposing Jewish subversion, their role in many of the world’s wars, discrediting the received Holocaust narrative that’s been forced down our throats for decades, including a vigorous defense of the Austrian corporal.

    But his bias and ‘Hate’ (sorry, I couldn’t resist) shows through when he goes off in his criticism of Christianity and its origins, including the historical reliability of the Old Testament record.

    A good many of Dalton’s objections are simply rehashed arguments of 19th century higher-critical liberal theologians from the Tubingen School and others. I doubt he is aware (or even cares) that a good many of his objections to the Bible’s historicity has been thoroughly answered by conservative Christian scholars as Robert Dick Wilson, Oswald T. Allis, Gleason Archer, Edward J. Young, and a plethora of others writers who carefully investigated such matters.

    A host of conservative New Testament scholars have also assiduously rebutted the arguments of critics who challenge the reliability of the Greek Scriptures in both manuscript transmission and historical accuracy (e.g., Gregory Boyd, D.A. Carson, Craig Blomberg, Craig Evans, and others). Most people, unfortunately, never bother to work through the issues or hear both sides of the matter.

    • Replies: @Sorel McRae
  19. @Observator

    “It’s one of history’s greatest ironies that Christianity, given its traditional Jew-hatred, was the vehicle by which the ethnocentrism, misogyny and homophobia of second temple period Judaism were spread across the globe” – It seems to me that Whites today could use a good dose of that “Jew hatred” instead of the groveling before the ‘Tribe’ that currently takes place; “ethnocentrism” instead of the White cuckery that prevails everywhere throughout the West; “misogyny” instead of the feminism that runs rampant in our society; and good old “homophobia” instead of the gay and Transgender freak parade that America has morphed into.

    Yep, I like those old values.

    • Agree: Naughtius Maximus
  20. Talking about the Jews without understanding Masonry is like a hug without a squeeze. Jews are the bad cop. Masonry is the good.

    Read Eustace Mullins Curse of Canaan.

  21. Totally Brilliant article!!!!

  22. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    “So, hate speech per se is not to be prohibited, but rather only a special kind of hate speech—“inciteful (to violence) hate speech.” In other words, only the worst of the worst, apparently. Clarification and elaboration would soon follow.

    Also, the Foreword to the statement reveals something of the deeper motives at work here. We find, in the opening paragraph, references to “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazis,” and the dreaded “White supremacy.” Strange how we inevitably find such terms in any discussion of hate speech; more on this below.”

    Uh huh, say will you address the insurrection and how Trump supporters are lying about the rethoric there?

    Trump Supporters will never admit fault. from BestOfOutrageCulture

    I suspect you are playing a Tu Quoque fallacy.

    “So, let’s get down to the rub. I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward: Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews. (Oops—is that hate speech?)”

    Yes because you love lying.

    “Meanwhile, across the ocean, Jews were making better legal progress in the proto-Soviet Union. The rise of Jewish Bolsheviks from around 1900, including Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin”

    This is a conspiracy conviently ignoring how 90% weren’t jews:
    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45384/did-40-of-the-nkvd-soviet-police-leadership-have-jewish-nationality

    https://medium.com/@W.J.M/anti-semitism-within-the-white-army-38a7e49f36cd

    “The nihilistic Christian values—based on a mythical God and an unknowable and perhaps nonexistent future life—managed to undermine and ultimately displace the superior Greco-Roman values that had flourished for 800 years and created the foundation of all of Western civilization. Only an overthrow of Judeo-Christianity and a return to classic, aristocratic values can save humanity at this point.”

    Yeah in that they were ‘liberal’ http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2013/03/playing-greek-defence-review-of-thornton.html

    Could you also try to explain away the very Christain and very antisemitic Nazis: https://www.smitingshepherds.com/Preventing_Totalitarianism

    “Particularly striking are the words of Nietzsche” not really: https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred

    “Jewish hatred then metastasized in Christianity, taking form as its nominal opposite, namely, love. ” hahahahahaha! Good one: https://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html

    “This is actually quite a relief; any opposition to Jews or other minorities, if rational and non-emotional (e.g., fact-based) cannot count as hate speech! Therefore, writings by scholars, academics, or other serious researchers, who build a case based on facts, history, and plausible inference, are under no circumstances engaging in hate speech. This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.”

    No you are still lying: https://cervelovan.medium.com/ah-the-empire-right-caitlin-the-empire-from-the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion-perhaps-36828236da66
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-018-9310-x

    [No longer a root vegetable] Kevin MacDonald unloads biotroofs on al-Jazeera reporter from BadSocialScience


    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Holocaust_profit_controversy
    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/45979
    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/45974
    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/04/16/analyzing-kevin-macdonalds-culture-of-critique-and-the-alt-rights-embrace-of-anti-jewish-ideology/
    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/02/viewpoint-kevin-macdonald-wont-accept-evidence-supporting-alternative-theories-about-jewish-influence/
    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36251/are-11-6-of-worlds-billionaires-jews#comment138976_36251

    Don’t pretend your hate is “fact-based”

  23. Wally says:
    @Joe Paluka

    “Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.”

    antisemitic:
    any person or thought that a Jew doesn’t like

  24. Wally says:
    @Anon

    Here you go:

    Complete list of Jewish Expulsions / Jews expelled from over 1,000 places in history:
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12596

  25. According to those that rule over us, I’m a hater, guilty of of the most heinous crime against humanity. I’m now a white Supremacists and domestic terrorists because I hate those that Burn Loot Murder with impunity, illegally invade my country, and sell out America by offshoring jobs and factories to communist regimes that hate my inalienable rights to prosper in a land that once guaranteed my right to life, liberty and happiness,
    In reality, I just disagree with those who disagree with my own ideology. Do I believe all blacks, Jews, Asians, even white hating whites are despicable, no. Just that small majority that uses reverse discrimination against those I love for no other reason than we are white.
    Whites are good people, I’m one of them. I refuse to be attacked because it’s popular for woke culture to attack me for the color of my skin, in order for them to appear compliant with government mandated woke anti white hate policies.
    I love going to different countries to experience their culture and learn about their traditions, foods, music etc.
    All this hate is nothing more than attacks on culture I embrace. One with law and order, respect, kindness. When government starts infringing on those sacred rights endowed by my creator, I can only react in a reciprocal manner.
    So to every government of the world who is spreading critical race Theory, shove it up your ass, I’m not buying it.

  26. So, let’s get down to the rub. I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward: Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews. (Oops—is that hate speech?) That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit. I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people.

    No. In the Olympiad of Suffering, it is, basically:

    Tranny privilege trumps Gay privilege.

    Gay privilege trumps black privilege.

    Black privilege trumps womyn privilege.

    Womyn privilege trumps Jew privilege.

    Jew privilege trumps Hispanic privilege.

    Hispanic privilege trumps white privilege.

    White privilege trumps Martian pri….

    Oops, there are no Martians…

  27. dimples says:
    @Observator

    Christianity is a religion of a thousand churches, each one started up by some crank who didn’t accept the dogma of the church he was currently inhabiting. It’s not surprising, orthodox Christian theological dogma is the most stupid and ridiculous of all religions. And the dogmas of the thousand churches are no better. Be your own heretic, Jesus won’t mind at all.

    • Agree: Naughtius Maximus
  28. gotmituns says:
    @Observator

    Well said sir and let me add, the only way the jews can do this is to control all media/tv, government. and schools as they obviously do.

  29. Amon says:

    Christianity was invented as a means of subverting non jews into viewing jews as perfect by having the direct link between God and man be a jew.

    The laws and morals of Christianity teaches you to love thy next, turn your cheek when they hurt you and to forgive them of their crimes.

    No other religion tells its worshippers to simp for those who hurt them.

  30. @Badger Down

    Can we then charge someone with being a self hating white?

  31. Max Edge says:

    An anti-Semite used to be someone who hated Jews. But now an anti-Semite is someone a Jew hates.

  32. mcohen says:
    @Anon

    dear sir

    thank you for stating the obvious.best reply i have read on unz in years

  33. Schuetze says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I too was thinking in terms of the fire bombings of German cities as being the ultimate manifestation of hate speech. After all, Judea did declare war on Germany in 1933, and Jewish Power carried that very hatred all the way through to the destruction of Berlin by the Russian Red Rapist Army in May 1945.

    But the bitter irony here is not that Jewish Power Holocausted untold hundreds of thousands of Germans, likely even millions, but that just as Jewish power falsely casts the mantle of hate on their hated goyim, so has Jewish Power falsely cast the mantle of the “war crime” of the deliberate Holocaust of your enemy back on to the Germans.

    Another worthy example of hate projection would be Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both were completely unnecessary and both are perfect examples of jewish blood thirst and vengeance. The atomic bomb was clearly a product of a secret cabal of jewish atomic scientists, and Jewish Power coerced Truman in to denying offers of surrender by the Japanese until the bombs were ready. In the end, Jewish Power accomplished their goals and the jews got their second goy holocaust (or seventh or twentieth or however many depending on how you count). And not only did they get all these holocausts, they projected them all back onto the victims themselves, the same way they do “hate”.

    I am also reminded of the quote by Oppenheimer, father of the atom bomb: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. Clearly Oppenheimer is relishing in the ultimate expression of Jewish Power, the power to destroy the goy world.

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  34. gotmituns says:
    @Amon

    link between God and man be a jew.
    ——————————————-
    I don’t believe this for a second. Jesus (if he existed at all) was a man who was fathered by a Nordic/Germanic Centurion stationed in Galilee. That is why they were “amazed” (the jewish scholars) that the son of a carpenter could have such knowledge. They had no idea of Nordic/Germanic intellectual superiority.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
    • LOL: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Braun Stelph
  35. Jews are the most vile, filthy and disgusting people to have ever lived on our planet-barring satanists and pedophiles.
    To despise them is a basic test of your cognitive abilities. If you cannot see evil for what it is when personified then you are an idiot or a fool.
    To wish to have them expelled from your society is to show that you love beauty and truth.

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @Realist
  36. The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense.

    The point here is that the whole notion of ‘hate speech,’ like hate itself, dissolves into a subjective void. In objective terms, it is virtually meaningless. How, then, can be it be subject to the force of law?

    Excellent.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  37. Getaclue says:
    @Observator

    If you read the writings of the Mystic Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (and others) you will find out that the “virgin birth” “pagan dogma” was allowed by God in those Pagan societies as a foreshadowing of what was to come as the actual truth.

    It is amazing what is out there if you actually take the time to do serious research as to what was revealed to the Mystic Saints during the last 2,000 years. People who have an incomplete picture come to conclusions that are inaccurate and views that don’t help them determine the truth. Much of the history in this area is never discussed although it is there and obvious conclusions can be drawn when seen/studied that illuminate minds that have been seriously misled.

    This is a real historical event, something that also happened at Lourdes, Fatima and a number of other places during history but this time She allowed herself to be extensively photographed (at Fatima She showed the Seers she appeared to Hell — the actual place of Divine Justice and eternal torture for sinners that exists beneath where we are standing right now — you should read their reaction when they were allowed to see it?). I will guarantee you never heard of what happened at Zeitoun, Egypt in 1969 or saw the photographs and yet you are no doubt sure it never happened and that it could not happen. It did.:

    https://www.churchpop.com/2016/03/15/witnessed-millions-unexplanable-apparition-lady-

    zeitoun/https://www.sanctamarie.com/our-lady-of-zeitoun

  38. DanFromCT says:
    @Observator

    So clever of you to undermine the only defense against your sort’s vile hatred of non-Jews–blowing smoke in people’s faces with those ridiculously puerile screeds you cite as authoritative. As if the world would have become modern a thousand years ago if only it’d remained “classical,” when in fact science remained stillborn throughout the entire classical world without the Christian concept of nature’s God and His laws.

    Were it not for the Scholastics there wouldn’t even be the language let alone the conceptual framework for the science that allows you haters to use the computer you’re typing on. If you were remotely interested in the truth you would have cited James Hannam’s God’s Philosophers, How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science, but it’s the truth and not a anti-Christian screed, so you wouldn’t be interested.

    All modern rights, especially those of women and Jews, arose only through the development of Christian law in Europe. As Voltaire wrote, damnation for your sort is being thought of by others as irrelevant. When the ptb unwisely shut down the Internet and force people to meet and plan face to face, I have the feeling you’ll be as disappointed as others find you irrelevant in this spiritual war with evil.

    • Replies: @HdC
  39. Referring to what happened on Jan. 6 as an “insurrection” is hate speech, by those who refer to it as such. It was nothing of the kind.

    • Agree: Getaclue
  40. @gotmituns

    You mean those Nordic cannibal Barbarians of that time?

    lol

    • Replies: @gotmituns
  41. DanFromCT says:
    @Amon

    . . . to simp for those who hurt them.

    So, given the world’s history, it’s Christian warriors who’re “simps,” as you call us? Freud would say it’s you and gotmituns who’re the simps for needing to project your manly inadequacies onto others.

  42. stalin not jewish? look closer.

    • Replies: @36 ulster
  43. @Amon

    False : Jesus commanded to turn the other cheek only within the in-group, and to love unfriendly people (inimici) within the in-group, as had actually been the order given to Jews for time immemorial, not enemies (hostes) : quite the contrary Jesus very explicity forbade to merely pray for the world outside Jewry (or the nations : goyim) or with it well. For Jesus the in-group was the Jews minus a great deal he had decided to exclude as heretical (as all prophets generally did) plus a tiny few proselytes that were considered to have a soul of more Jewish character than that of most Jews. Christianity never turned the other cheek towards out-groups, nor allowed parishioners to mix on friendly terms with people from out-groups (though it reserved the brunt of its obligatory hatred to former Christians considered to have betrayed) and that changed only at Vatican II Council. Many people entered Christianity so as to oppose an even greater intolerance and exclusion to the one they felt victims of by Jews. Up to Vatican II offering the other cheek to non-Christians or Heretics was called treason. Jesus command was that you should rather support a wicked member from the in-group, or strongly identified with religious practice, rather than mix with friendly people from the out-group, or simply un-identified with religious practice.

  44. As usual, TD never fails to move the ball forward in our knowledge base and my archive/library will be better for it.
    But who are the Jews…and who they are not?
    Found this a month ago – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Who+are+Jews&m=0 – and when we add this to Jesus’s direct labeling them as the children of the father of lies, that doesn’t leave much doubt, does it?

  45. Josh Kenn says:

    “Hate speech” is just the name applied to censorship after the victor sets the rules. In this case, the victor used freedom of speech to take it away from the rest of us.

    Despite this fact, people still defend absolute “free speech” as if it could end any other way. There must be blasphemy laws for a culture (including their morals and religion) to survive. Otherwise what was the point of submitting to a temporal authority if it is not even confident enough to defend it values?

    All of the weaknesses in the US Constitution have to do with Free Masonry and how it is discreetly different than Christianity. The Constitution is not a Christian document, though the “Founding Fathers” found it convenient to allow the various Protestant heresies to believe different.

    I used to think that it was a strength of Protestants that their origin is based on scripture. That made sense considering how corrupt the traditions of the Roman Catholics are. I was unaware of an uncorrupted Christian tradition in the east that goes back to the first Church. I am old enough to understand how important context is.

  46. Josh Kenn says:
    @Anon

    Thank you for those “hate facts”.

  47. Josh Kenn says:

    The author opens up with a juvenile definition of “hate” while ignoring how often it or its sentiment is used in the Christian bible.

    The whole thing is an attack on Christianity which is an attack on love and health. There are many things in this world worthy of hate and God was never shy about pointing them out.

    One should hate those things that interfere with our capacity to love.

  48. Realist says:
    @Anon

    Regarding those who subscribe to the belief of Judaism, we should remember:
    Having been kicked out of over 100 countries throughout history, there MUST be a reason!

    Instead of deporting or killing Jews…make it illegal, for all races and ethnicities to do what the Jews do that you don’t like, or that is harmful to society.

  49. Trinity says:

    Jews accusing others of hate speech? Since the media is Jewish, the Jew has been spewing REAL hate speech against Whites for 60 years and counting. Academia, same thing. The Jew who advocated that porn be protected under the First Amendment, now seeks to take away the rights to call out Jew lies, Jew racism, Jew war crimes, Jew child sex trafficking ala Epstein/Maxwell, etc. The Jew judging hate speech? Might as well let Ted Bundy babysit your teenage daughter. I think it might not be exaggerated to call the Jew and his tribe, nothing more than extortionists or mafia type thugs.

    Whites have bought into this hook, line and sinker. I was watching some White parents complaining about (((CRT,))) which is admirable but the way they went about doing it is disgusting. Sure, they complained that the program is about bashing Whites, but not without first talking about how they were not “racists.” I saw this on Tucker and lately Carlson is flooded with Black, Jew or other nonwhite guests who “stand up” for the cause. How do the nonwhite guest fight the cause you ask? haha. Well say the “patriot” is Black like last night. Some Black dude who sounded about as educated as yours truly, was bragging about how hard he worked for all his degrees that he didn’t need Whitey’s help to obtain greatness. He “made it” despite having to go through all those “obstacles” Blacks have to go through. smdh. In the REAL WORLD, Blacks like Jews have to go through less obstacles than the Royal Family. How many Blacks out there are GIVEN positions they CLEARLY don’t deserve? How many Blacks basically show up for work and practically sit around until the time clock says 5. They punch in, take a couple of 30 minute breaks, an hour lunch and then clock out after 8 hours. That is all that is required of them. First hired and last fired is what the truth is instead of the opposite. And of course those righteous White folk against CRT have to always parrot that they were/are an admirer of MLK. MLK? A “reverend” who was said to beat up White prostitutes for a hobby. Oh yeah, I admire the shit out of MLK, Tucker.

    And as for Christianity? I do think it has hurt and helped Whites, but Christianity is not the problem. I hardly read the Bible but where in the Bible does it say worship Jews. It says something about those who bless Israel shall be blessed but isn’t that in the Old Testament and before Jesus arrives on the scene. And sorry, I am not buying into any book that suggests I live my life serving another race or tribe of humans that are out to destroy me or hate me. Could be a lot of these Christians either misinterpreted the Bible, or their (((pastors)))) misinterpreted it for them. Is there a commandment that says thou shalt serve Jews before God? I thought God said that thou shalt have no other God before Him?

    And exactly how have Whites been “blessed” by blessing Israel and/or Jews? LMAO. Okay, lets see. You wanna ask the former Soviet Union or Weimar Republic how they were blessed by taking Jews? You wanna ask how sending off thousands of troops to be killed and maimed in the Middle East is a blessing for America. Was 9-11 a blessing? Was the attack on the USS Liberty a blessing? Was the Jew takeover of America a blessing? Well actually it was a blessing for Jews and Israel. The reality is those who bless Israel or Jews will bless Israel or Jews. Comprende?

    • Thanks: anarchyst, CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @HdC
  50. Realist says:
    @RockaBoatus

    Jews disproportionately influence and control all of our nation’s media outlets (whether it’s nightly news, print news, social media, including Hollywood and academia), and they make sure to prohibit and penalize anyone (mostly Whites) who expresses contrary opinions – especially if they get too close to recognizing the yarmulke-wearing Wizard pulling the strings behind the curtain.

    Why do you think gentiles allowed that to happen…and continue to let that happen?

  51. Realist says:
    @Robert Dolan

    I’ll tell you what I HATE……I HATE what the small hats have done to me with their tribal BULLSHIT…..that fucks things up for EVERYBODY.

    Why do you and all the other gentiles (98 percent of the population) allow it to continue? Do you think incessant pissing and moaning will change things?

    • Replies: @HT
    , @Robert Dolan
  52. The immediate release of American’s who were standing between two purple ropes waiting to visit the people’s house on Jan.6 and are now in jail, without trial, needs to be demanded by the useless Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and other so called opposition party politicians. These Rino’s are less than useless and are responsible for President Trump not being re-elected, since they had the power to get it done but purposely refused to act.

    But back to the ” insurrection”. Even the guy who “dared” to put his feet on Nancy Pelosi’s desk, needs to be respected, especially since he was allowed into the building by the Capitol police in the first place. GIVE ME A BREAK. Americans need to get educated on the rights that they and their fellow countrymen and women have and stop being bamboozled by arrogant and traitorous people who do things like tear up a president’s speech in front of the world!! Who is this Pelosi anyway, some kind of queen bee whose ring must be kissed by the public!!!

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @geokat62
  53. Thomas Dalton writes:

    “I take this whole topic very personally. It’s no secret that I’ve written harshly against Jews and other minorities. It’s no secret that I prefer living in a White community and a White nation. I have no need to apologize for any of this. And yet, for these very reasons, some people find it appropriate to call me a ‘hater’: “Dalton hates the Jews”; “he hates Blacks,” “he hates Latinos,” etc., etc. But I state here, for the record, that nothing is further from the truth. I hate no one.”

    You maybe hate no one, but Thomas fails to see what’s at play today.
    The world is now black and white. You either love all or you hate all. You can’t have a mix. And this is how they enforce their control upon you. This is how they destroy choice. This is how they enforce their rules. This is how they bring in the authority of the state, for if you do not agree with what the state says, then you therefore hate them and therefore an enemy of the state and the people it protects and represents.

    I do not hate homosexuals, but I vehemently disagree in homosexuality. For me to have this stance, I therefore hate homosexuals because I do not love their love (as we are told) for one another. “If two people love one another, who the hell are you to tell them otherwise?” is the usual reply. And this opens up the door to pedophilia. After all, who are we to tell two people, who love one another what they can do with one another? “If a child enjoys sex and is seen to not be in distress, why then should a pedophile be stopped from his pleasure?” Like homosexuality, this is precisely the narrative that they will play in order to normalize pedophilia.

    And the jew, is 100% behind this, because by bringing in hate speech, hate crimes and all other manner of ‘hate’ actions, it allows them 100% protection, for to disagree with the jew/Zionism is to hate jews. It’s all incredibly basic but damning to any freedom loving society.
    This is why you don’t give jews power.
    They have absolutely no love for freedom, well, for anyone else other than the jew that is.

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
  54. ‘Hate’ is a meaningless abstraction. Used by (((msm))) to describe a ‘crime’ committed by a constructive citizen on a NAM.

  55. There is no hate speech, only hated speech.

    One of the reasons Chosenites need these bs “laws:” the Golden Rule was canceled along with the erasure of Christianity from the public square.

  56. Robinski says:

    Stalin’s real name is Dzhugashvili, in Georgian, it means son of the Jew.

    • Agree: Schuetze
  57. DanFromCT says:
    @Realist

    Why do you think gentiles allowed [Jewish control of the public forum and entertainment] to happen…and continue to let that happen?

    That’s a good question. Judging by your tone, you apparently believe you know, so why don’t you let us know what you think the reasons are?

    • Replies: @Realist
  58. Trinity says:

    I have been hearing or reading that Blacks make up 13% of the population and that Jews make up 2% of the population in America my entire life. I find this VERY HARD to believe that there has been absolutely no change in the number of Blacks and the number of Jews in America for at least 40 years and counting. Kind of like hearing the “11 million” illegal invader number for at least 15-20 years. haha.

    When you add up all children fathered by a Jew ala Jarvanka and their children, what does this do to the numbers. It seems that USUALLY the offspring of a Jew father or Black father always side with the father’s side. Strange, huh? It is as if this was a PLANNED battle strategy from long ago to breed outside your race. How often does a Jewish woman marry outside her race or bear children with a non-Jewish male?

    My guess is that the Jews make up a significantly higher percentage than the 2% number that has been quoted forever, especially when you consider half breeds or mutts.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  59. “This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.”

    Thanks a lot, wise guy! Now they’ll close it for sure since you’ve alerted “them”.

  60. Corvinus says:
    @RockaBoatus

    Of course you can express your hate. You have that liberty. But expect there to be consequences. That’s how it works in a free society.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @RockaBoatus
  61. @Schuetze

    I disagree on Oppenheimer. That haunting quote from the “Bhagavad Gita” was said in regret for the mass killing weapon he had discovered. After the war he lobbied for international control of nuclear proliferation and opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb. Later, when Ike was president, he even lost his security clearance.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  62. geokat62 says:

    Excerpts from, Government of Ontario to Fund New Education Programs Targeting ‘Blight’ of Antisemitism in Schools:

    The Government of Ontario announced two new education programs on Monday to address growing antisemitism in Canadian public schools.

    In a virtual press conference live-streamed on YouTube, Minister of Education Stephen Lecce said that the $327,000 initiative was an investment to “help us combat antisemitism in our homes, in our schools, and in communities right across Ontario.”

    The programs — “Unpacking Intolerance: Equity and Diversity Training for Educators” and “Tour for Humanity Virtual Summer Camp” — will be supported by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies (FSWC). The initiative was prompted by persisting Jew-hatred in Ontario, Lecce said.

    A recent report from the nonprofit B’nai Brith Canada revealed it had collected a record 250 antisemitic incidents during the month of May, including 61 violent episodes.

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/06/government-of-ontario-to-fund-new-education-programs-targeting-blight-of-antisemitism-in-schools/

  63. Dystopian says:

    People who come up with things like “hate speech” are looking inside themselves. They hate anyone who doesn’t agree with them to the very core of their being. They also think everyone is as sick as they are. They can’t be reasoned with, nothing changes their mind. Personally, I don’t waste my time hating anyone, but I might make an exception if they keep it up.

  64. HT says:

    Jews use every form of media and communication to generate hatred of whites but just let whites say something even mildly negative about the Jews and suddenly they are Hitler and preaching hate speech. These manipulative, corrupt, conniving people have set up a system whereby we cannot even bring up all the evil they do without being attacked.

  65. @moi

    Biden is a sad, sick, demented old fool. No American president should bow down to any man, let alone a leader of that shitty little country. Biden makes me ashamed to be an American.

  66. Zumbuddi says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Thanks.

    Some quibbles — USAF planned for firebombing of civilians at least as early as 1942, when development of German Village was begun in Utah desert.

    FDR ordered acquisition of the location in 1938

    • Thanks: Schuetze
  67. HT says:
    @Realist

    Jews are intelligent connivers and through control of the institutions they are able to turn everyone else against each other while making themselves untouchable. Whites today are so brainwashed most don’t even understand at this point how the Jews in media, Hollywood, and academia have conditioned them and turned them toward self loathing. As hard as it is to believe, blacks have a better understanding of Jews than the more intelligent whites and their resentment of Jews is apparent. It’s sad.

    • Replies: @Realist
  68. geokat62 says:

    Telegram comment posted by Warren Balogh:

    The debate over CRT is activating White America like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Once they even make the argument, they force people to consciously identify as White people.

    No matter how many conservative copes end in some variety of “let’s just go back to being colorblind” or repeating the MLK “not color skin content character!” mantra over and over again, once you see yourself as under attack for being White, you can’t unsee it.

    And there’s really no way they can walk this back. It’s happening because the America of the 1980s is truly gone, Whites as a percentage of the US population are declining rapidly, so too many people have a material interest in pushing aggressive White guilt narratives.

    It’s a national disintegration happening. The more Whites decline in America, the faster this disintegration will accelerate.

    https://t.me/ahab88/4372

  69. @Anon

    By any chance, are you one of the authors for critical race Theory?

  70. gotmituns says:
    @Braun Stelph

    Yes, but not the Germanic soldiers who fought for Rome. The intellect was there and only had to be brought out by contact with a higher civilization, Rome at that time. So any offspring of such a person would be naturally smarted than the jewish scribes. Remember, the jews are not smart in the usual sense of the word. They’re sly and cunning, but not smart.

  71. The left seems to control the language when it comes to politics. Lumping everybody who disagrees with them as “haters” is nothing more than a form of projection.
    Nice article, but lefties aren’t convinced by logic.

  72. anarchyst says:
    @Trinity

    The “stealth tactic” that jews use, at least here in the USA, it is illegal for the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau to provide a classification for “jews”. You see, jews are not to be counted.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  73. geokat62 says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Who is this Pelosi anyway, some kind of queen bee whose ring must be kissed by the public!!!

    Pelosi is a Noahide who proudly disclosed that her father was a Shabbos goy who spoke Yiddish and lit the candles at the local synagogue.

    Nancy Pelosi: My father was a Shabbos Goy

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  74. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    Hating Evil is a virtuous act.

    Jews = Evil.

    Decent people must hate the Tribe.

  75. geokat62 says:
    @Corvinus

    Of course you can express your hate. You have that liberty. But expect there to be consequences. That’s how it works in a free society.

    Do the ADL/SPLC suffer consequences when they express their hatred of whites, Corvy?

    I guess the correct answer to that question would suggest that perhaps we might not be living in a free society, after all?

    • Agree: Mehen
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  76. @Wally

    Any action or speech blocking Jews access to power or money is anti-semitism.

  77. DanGood says:

    “what mature individual today is willing to openly and earnestly say “I hate you” to anyone?”
    The answer: those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  78. Agent76 says:

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

    • Replies: @InnerCynic
  79. Realist says:
    @HT

    Yes, on average Ashkenazi Jews are considerably more intelligent than gentiles.

    • Replies: @HT
    , @HdC
  80. @Realist

    I have to point out the idiotic irony of your comment.

    Organized jewry is a crew that engages in incessant pissing and moaning…..they are professional bitchers. They even have a special word for it.

    But whites are just supposed to accept being fucked over.

    Got it pal!

    Thanks so much for the help!

    • Thanks: GeneralRipper
    • LOL: InnerCynic
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Badger Down
  81. Realist says:
    @DanFromCT

    That’s a good question. Judging by your tone, you apparently believe you know, so why don’t you let us know what you think the reasons are?

    Well, one big reason is the adoration of Jews by Christians…especially very religious Christians.

    Another is the fact that, on average, Ashkenazi Jews are considerably smarter than gentiles.

    Now, what is your answer?

  82. @Realist

    Tim Wu offers a clue in The Master Switch.

    It often involves money, and in the cases of the many Jews who ultimately took control of the most successful media-communications enterprises that were invented through the sweat, toil, and persistence of (usually poorly financed) non-Jews, one sees evidence of unique Jewish characteristics: a kind of foresight, born of long experience, combined with an extensive network of reliable middle-men/ greasers-of-the-rails (Yuri Slezkine calls them Mercurians in The Jewish Century).

    “The commercial forces of consolidation and concentration have prevailed in every communications revolution since the invention of the telephone in the late 1800s.” https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/02/master-switch-tim-wu-review

    Harking back to the story of Joseph and his relationship with the Egyptian pharaohs, Jews tend to make government — the source of heavily collateralized wealth– their first stop in any state which this migratory tribe selects as its new abode. Warner Brothers became financially successful, and set the model for other Jewish-run Hollywood studios, by becoming nothing short of an agency of US government in the world wars. A similar pattern is discernible in the revenue streams being generated by novel vaccines — create the propaganda that causes a panic; obtain vast funding from US taxpayers to develop the solution to the panic.

    Do only Jews follow this model/pattern?

    Rockefeller, among others, has both led and partnered with Jews in numerous of the most of such campaigns, from Spanish flu to the World Wars to the creation of Big Pharma to the government mandates of child vaccines etc.

    Mostly, though, it’s money, that Jews tend to have more of by means of federalized usury.

    Break the back of usury/the Federal Reserve system and the power of Jews might be somewhat contained.

    But nothing can destroy the centuries of mercantile experience and network-building that is a Jewish hallmark.

    • Replies: @Realist
  83. HT says:
    @Realist

    They have little else to offer. They are not explorers or innovators. Everything they do is about them and their desire to change our culture for the worse. They are meddlers who cannot mind their own business.

    • Replies: @Realist
  84. Their love for their imperiled heritage

    The Enemy announced was “hate”, and in his rage

    Demanded all must hate their hate and all

    Must hate without exception any soul

    Unwise enough to show them sympathy

    Or face the trials of his antipathy,

    From social exile to the heavy threat

    Of laws he promised soon to legislate

    Against the merest overheard expression

    In defiance of his anti-white suppression.

  85. To meet the incomprehensible stare

    Of violent accusation, they needed

    The confidence of undefeated

    Men, and this they found in finding

    They were living testaments, binding

    Once and future greatness of the nation

    Whose blood drove them, as by divine action,

    To become who they were, and are:

    Sons of the sun, fathers of another star.

  86. Hate speech, critical race theory, lgbtq, blacklivesmatter, the war on the white race, etc., are all communist, bolshevik tactics and were used in the overthrow of the Czar in the bolshevik revolution, this same tactic is being used to attempt to take down America.

    Read The Protocols of Zion, this is the zionist template for the destruction of America, zionists are destroyer of nations and humanity, it is what they do, it is in their DNA.

  87. @Wally

    Not that I disagree with your take on language, but what has puzzled me, for decades, is the use of the term “anti-Semitic”. In order to be “anti” something, you have to know what it is. Semitic is a group of related languages and dialects.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitic
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semitic-languages
    While Webster has “Jews” as a 3rd (and last) definition, that would be a more recent addition.
    It’s difficult to understand how I can be opposed to a language group, other than its usage in my presence or in any “official” capacity.
    Anti-Semitism = trick

  88. @geokat62

    Thank you for this. This woman is claimed to have so much talent and savvy and is capable of performing so much, no doubt, no doubt, if only she could get over her own vile type of arrogance. She makes Trump seem like an altar boy.

  89. Is there such a thing as “hate speech” or is it, like all of the so-called “racist” BS, the projection of those who are the biggest haters out there… those who would silence anyone that disagrees with them?

  90. Hate speech is forcing the masses to hate those that don’t believe in their messiah cults, government and cult leaders. No man, woman or LGBTIQPWXYZ is a deity. The creator is beyond comprehension. It cares no more for humanity that it does for nearby planets annihilated from a supernova explosion.
    We are just another global extinction event soon to be a reality. Humans are unfit to dominate other life forms or be guardians of the living breathing biosphere we inhibit.
    We have outbred and outlived far beyond our expiration date.
    Die humans, die.

    P.S. Now that’s hate speech.

  91. @Realist

    I used to be one of the adoring Christians until I snapped out of my delusion. It is a powerful faith that only logic managed to dislodge. Sadly, the legions of kindly deluded fools are innumerable. It took years and years to cleanse myself of my programming.

    • Thanks: Realist
  92. @Realist

    Another is the fact that, on average, Ashkenazi Jews are considerably smarter than gentiles.

    Not sure you’ve cited an unalloyed fact.
    Some Ashkenazi Jews register IQs that are “7 to 17 points higher” than Europeans-as-a-whole.
    That is itself is a problematic comparison.

    Comparing a small group to an overall population is not kosher logos-ical; it’s an apple-tree to apple-orchard comparison.

    Controversy surrounded one thesis that European/Ashkenazi Jews were “smarter” because they were “forced” to engage in money-lending and other such occupations, which developed their verbal and mathematical skills.
    I think that argument is bogus.
    European Jews may, today, test smarter because:
    1. the dumbest European Jews were culled in the Russian revolution & world wars;
    2. the ‘smartest’ European Jews attended German and Austrian universities . . .
    3. and survived the revolutions and wars, with the directed aid of Jews in USA, as well as the US taxpayer;
    4. many of those “smartest”, namely, German Jews, were assisted to migrate to USA where they immediately obtained professional and university positions; plus,
    5. as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, many European Jews attended New School where, after little or no course-work, they were granted PhDs and went on the posts as professors throughout the US university system.

    OTOH:

    some statistic data on Israel, which has about 50% of Ashkenazi Jews in its population show that Israel achieves lower average IQ scores than countries of Europe or East Asia (IQ and the Wealth of Nations). (Israel 94, England 100, Hong Kong 107)

    https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Ashkenazi_intelligence.html
    The above article goes on to explain that the Israeli statistics “include Arabs and non-Jews . . .”, but it also included Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Sabra (but probably not Ethiopian) Jews.

  93. Damn fine essay by Dalton, yet again. Thank god(s) for Ron Unz and his willingness to re-post such great articles. Dalton exposes the hate speech scam for what it is. And we shouldn’t forget to credit the original source: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net. TOO does great work as well. We need all the help we can get, to keep the pressure on the Judeocracy.

  94. @Agent76

    I have to laugh at George’s quote. Today’s “dumb” are as dumb if not dumber than at any time in history…. but “silent”? They’re the noisiest idiots imaginable.

  95. willem1 says:

    To me the issue is quite straightforward. The enshrinement of so-called “hate speech” in law is an attempt to criminalize the expression of disagreement with the “approved” narratives.

    Once upon a time (and not so long ago), everyone not only knew what they thought “hate” was, but in general their beliefs were in broad agreement. Then laws started appearing to criminalize “hate speech” and to doubly-penalize “hate crimes.” This is bad law for at least two reasons.

    First, as Mr. Dalton points out, “hate” is an emotion, which means that only the person experiencing it can prove it exists within him. This requires the law to guess at a person’s emotional state, something that can at best only be inferred, not proven. This starts us down a slippery slope.

    But then it got better. Progressives were then able to start enlarging and distorting the meaning of “hate” to include the term “expression of disagreement with an approved narrative.” For example, any criticism of a political figure or media personage who is a member of a “favored class” now becomes “hate speech”. Any ordinary crime with a victim who is a member of such a class becomes now becomes a “hate crime.” And so on.

    “Disagreement” is usually (if not always) based in reason, while “hate” is pure emotion. A recent Jon Rappoport blog statement is instructive:

    “As the drama called Human Life on Planet Earth advances in the 21st century, we are seeing an escalation of lower-brain emotional responses to events. And this is according to plan. I want to emphasize the underlying propaganda message. It’s very important to understand that message: ‘As more and more people are unable and unwilling to employ logic and rationality, those qualities diminish in importance, and you should abandon them because…they don’t serve you. They aren’t useful.’ You can see where this would lead. More and more people would surrender to their own stimulus-response mechanisms, and the overall level of chaos would increase and expand.”

    When you can’t make sense of something that is being labeled “hate” these days, the best way to straighten things out in your mind is to substitute the word “disagree” or “disagreement”. Then it all magically becomes clear.

  96. Only a highly insecure or severely distressed person would do such a thing. It’s a sign of weakness.

    It is this judgement which stops you from being honest with yourself about your plain-as-day to everyone obvious hatred; which precludes you from working through, leaving you stuck in this nightmare you’ve constructed.

    It might be weak to hate, but it is weaker still to hate and be too cowardly to admit it.

    • Replies: @Mehen
  97. No one can say with certainty that “Dalton hates X.” Only I can say, “I hate X,” precisely because it is my own feeling. If there is one thing that I insist upon, it is complete sovereignty over my own feelings. No one else will ever dictate how I feel about anything.

    Such hubris. Such egocentrism. What is “you” that has “complete sovereignty” over your “own feelings”? Such delusion!

    Your feelings most certainly have sovereignty over what you identify as “you”.

    Life will feel a lot better and make a lot more sense once you drop the small-mindedness and figure this out.

    • Troll: Schuetze, GeneralRipper
  98. The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense. Therefore, the corresponding concept of ‘hate speech,’ viewed as the expression of hatred, likewise melts into thin air. It is, technically, an incoherent concept when put forth as a basis for law

    Mindless egocentric exercise in missing the point. The use of the term “hate speech” is because it is a powerful term. The reality of hate speech laws is that they are there to repress speech which is believed to be a threat to social peace. This is common throughout history. I do not agree with it, as I believe that people must be able to work through their own madness, but it is ordinary nonetheless.

    • Troll: Schuetze
  99. @SolontoCroesus

    With great IQ comes great neuroses.

  100. Schuetze says:
    @follyofwar

    I completely disagree. Oppenheimer wanted to use those bombs on Germany, but they weren’t ready.

    “The atom bomb is Jewish justice. Robert Oppenheimer, the creator of the bomb, wanted to use it on German civilians, but was content to kill their Japanese Axis compatriots as a second-rate, but still highly technological ritual murder. He soon lost all enthusiasm for his former “project of death” when the United States suggested that the A-Bomb might potentially be used on Communists, of which Oppenheimer was an agent. Suddenly he developed a “conscience”, which simply means that he decided to cloak Jewish interests beneath the gaudy guise of “freedom”, “liberty” and the “American way”.

    Later, when the Jews set upon the strategy of portraying the Soviet Union as “anti-Semitic” in order to cover up their principal role in the murder of 60 million white Russians, perhaps Oppenheimer might have been forgiven if he had stopped worrying and started learning to love the bomb again.

    Jewish justice is simply a selective application of ancient laws. Of course, these laws were written by ancient segregationist Levite Jewish supremacists and would cease to exist if applied universally. Jewish justice is the double standard.”

    The second bomb was dropped directly over the Catholic church in Nagasaki, which was the center of Christianity in Japan.

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/christianity-nagasaki-bomb/219373/

    Oppenheimer receives a Masonic handshake from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

  101. Realist says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Comparing a small group to an overall population is not kosher logos-ical; it’s an apple-tree to apple-orchard comparison.

    But you do it when you blame Jews for all our problems.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  102. Realist says:
    @HT

    They are not explorers or innovators.

    With this, I agree. Gentiles have those attributes in spades.

    They are meddlers who cannot mind their own business.

    That is a description of the United States.

  103. Realist says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Jews are the most vile, filthy and disgusting people to have ever lived on our planet-barring satanists and pedophiles.

    I’m sure comments like this are a source of pride for Ron Unz and his website. For one to utilize someone’s blog to denigrate that person’s ethnicity in such a vile manner shows total contempt. Only a subhuman would do such a thing.

    If you cannot see evil for what it is when personified then you are an idiot or a fool.

    If you don’t agree with me you are an idiot

    To wish to have them expelled from your society is to show that you love beauty and truth.

    So you would like Ron Unz to be expelled from our society, I suppose you would like him to continue his website?

    Unless Ron Unz is an extreme self-hating Jew…I find it hard to believe he is not using this website to identify Jew-haters.

    • Troll: Badger Down
  104. DanFromCT says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Smarter than everyone else? Not the ones on Wall Street and a related field I contended with in the BigBagel. What Roger Scruton said of Jacques Derrida applies to the rest of Ashkenazim Jews–when you best them in argument they disappear like the Cheshire cat up their own arseholes with that signature shit-eating grin on their faces. What bears examination is where they find men, even in a country of 330 million, who’ll kiss the ring of Sheldon Adelson the way almost every Republican in Congress had to as a prerequisite to his nomination.

  105. I wouldn’t worry too much about the Jews. If history is any indication, their predations follow a pattern, which, following the logic of human response to abuse, always ends in them coming to grief. Now that Israel exists, and redirects the loyalty of the diaspora Jewish community away from their particular country of residence — to betrayal — in favor of Israel, the reaction cannot be far off.

    Not only are the Israeli Jews — the centerpiece of the cancer — now concentrated/ingathered in a specific geographical location where they can be targeted, but the digital world with its connectivity, its alternative media, and its smartphone cameras, provides a clear picture of Zionists barbarism. Jewish “control” of the corporate media worldwide notwithstanding, the regular people — even the younger generation of Jews — see the situation and are moving away from support for the geopolitical crime-in-progress that is Israel.

    Be patient, the Jewish situation has always been “self-correcting”.

  106. Schuetze says:
    @Jeff Davis

    It does my offspring no good even if Jews “self correct” but they are forced at best to live in a mulattoized cesspool of disenfranchisement that the jews created in one last fit of spite.

  107. @Realist

    My conclusions are based on 2,500 years of history during which jews have gone around the world genociding other groups and lying, cheating and stealing while simultaneously claiming to be Gods’ chosen people.
    They have spent the last 80 years using the Holohaux as a liability shield and denigrating a noble people, the Germans, with a massive blood libel that is false.
    Prove me wrong whiner.

    • Replies: @Realist
  108. luke2236 says:

    Whilst the authors arguments about the inability to define ‘hate’ and his logic as to who is the ‘hater’ are correct, his lack of understanding of a central part of his thesis is pathetic and would render the rest of his paper null and void in normal times. To wit – Moses, the Israelites and Biblical Hebrews ARE NOT jews! Never have been, never will be, the Bible doesnt say that and even the jews admit it in their own writings. [see for example the jewish encyclopedia under ‘a question of identity’ or similar. This fallacy of ‘Biblical precedence’ not only plays into the jews hand, but is the underpinning of support for their parasitic existence in the West. Stop repeating it. Instead, show them for what and who they are and tell the TRUTH of our Identity – the AngloSaxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and kindred peoples that are the literal descendants of Adam, Abraham Isaac and Jacob and are the Israel people of the Bible and of prophecy. The jew is not, and we are told that in the Bible several times. Archaeology and history confirm this.
    A fallacious premise normally renders an entire argument void, but we’ll give it a pass this time… but do some research!

    • Agree: White Elephant
  109. R2b says:
    @Wignat is a slur

    This guy here is just busy for the iewes!
    Get us a Republic!

  110. R2b says:

    Dalton is as fake as you can get.
    It’s time folks.
    Build and prepare.
    Dalton and Yeager are just nazis.
    Let us build a new, and large bunch of people.

  111. @RockaBoatus

    I’d love to consider the arguments of Wilson, Allis, Archer, Young, Boyd, Carson, Bloomberg, Evans, et al., but could you please just point us to one or two articles that give the basic outline?

    Thanks!

    • Replies: @RockaBoatus
  112. @Realist

    Don’t be obtuse.

    Assigning culpability — blame — is in an entirely different category from comparing the so-called intellectual capabilities of persons or groups.

    If a small group within a very large population commits Acts X, Y, and Z, then it is entirely appropriate to “blame” that small group for the crimes committed, if that is what the evidence reveals to be the reality.

    If you really want to consider absurdities, take the fact that crime in USA has reached unprecedented levels,

    “Gun crime has seen a sharp rise in major metropolitan areas, and especially in the nation’s largest city, New York. Shooting incidents rose 73 percent in May 2021 over the previous year . . .” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/22/us-crime-rise-draws-fears-bloody-summer-calls-for-more-cops

    then weigh that against Attorney General Merrick Garland’s assertion that “white nationalists” pose the “most dangerous threat” to USA:

    Attorney General Merrick Garland told Congress on Wednesday that violence incited by white supremacists poses “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.” May 12, 2021; https://news.yahoo.com/white-supremacy-is-top-security-threat-ag-garland-says-165923811.html

    • Replies: @Realist
  113. Trinity says:
    @anarchyst

    Well we all know that “jews” are “jews” when it is advantageous to be “jews” and they are “white” when it is advantageous to be “white.” Hell, we really do not even know if the “jews” are the REAL Jews for that matter. They really are a worthless lot no matter how you categorize them.

  114. GeneralRipper [AKA "Danny R.I.P"] says:

  115. Realist says:
    @Robert Dolan

    But whites are just supposed to accept being fucked over.

    How is your pissing and moaning changing that???

  116. cassandra says:

    Terms such as “hate speech”, “conspiracy theory”, “racist” and “anti-semitic” have been linguisitically melted in propaganda pots, and forged into super-pejoratives whose real meaning and power now far transcends their literal origins. They’ve been given such strong psychological connotations that it’s impossible to speak these phrases as if they’re a part of the language.

    I feel like someone watching a magic trick, intrigued by seeing it happen, but not quite able to figure out how it’s done; or more importantly, how it can be undone. Part of the remedy, I think, is to joke about them hyperbolically, but these phrases have become so ingrained in political paranoia that not even that is allowed.

  117. GeneralRipper [AKA "Danny R.I.P"] says:
    @Realist

    “Pissing and Moaning” as opposed to the voluminous pages of YOUR upbeat, positive, constructive and INSTRUCTIVE comments.

    Despairing old faggot….lol

    Die already, why don’t you.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Troll: Corvinus
  118. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:

    For your further study… follow the reasoning.

    1. The law defining the crime describes its elements such as the criminal act (and/or omission to act), illegality and the criminal intent. The question under consideration is “intent” (and, therefore, illegality). You must allow that your criminal intent of being racist is neither your awareness of the nature of the act (verbal or writing) and its probable consequences (and you just take no responsibility for your words); nor the knowledge that the results and probable consequences are practically certain to occur, but in the case where you are not under controlled substances, or hypnotized, or insane, or acting (artist), you are guilty because it is voluntary. Non-criminal acts are only “reflexes, convulsions, bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep, conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion, or a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.” All the rest is wrongdoings.

    2. Because (1) the law (provisions, statutes, acts, etc.) is manmade and construed as continuations thereof (of itself) and because (2) the government enacts a law specifying a wrongdoing and its elements long before it can punish an individual for wrong behavior, then each and every individual is initially a lawbreaker (infringer of the law at the hands (“focus”) of the law) and guilty of thereof. That’s why it is called presumption of innocence.

    3. Subsequently, almost every presumption is a rebuttable presumption, i.e. it holds good only in the absence of contrary evidence. Thus, the presumption of innocence is destroyed by positive proof of guilt which is simply established by the fact of enacting of a law (anti-hate laws) and not by your personal “wrongdoing” (you are very self-important person). “An inference drawn from a set of facts that leads to a conclusion as to another set of facts or as to a conclusion of law” defines the term “rebuttable”. Therefore, your article whether you were aware of the nature of your act and/or had a knowledge that the results and probable consequences would be practically certain to occur or not, it is wrongdoing whatever you implant in your article. It certainly does not matter whether you did it with good intentions or not, it is precisely because the law retrospectively (post facto law) determines of such act. And your attempt to deconstruct the word “hate” and associate it with the core of discussion (and therefore, problem) was naïve and with no professionalism. Generally, the law provides “mustnots” instructions. In this case, your intentions are to be disregarded. Your article is not argument and
    constitutes the crime of causation by this time (of reading). Having referred to the false definition of term “Hate”, won’t help and protect the white people engaged in their missions. You must change your strategic concepts regarding the “hate-speech” laws. The heart of a problem is not the term “hate” and its implications.

    4. Because liberals claim that “race” are just “stratification of classes” and not “born that way”, therefore, it makes no matter what do you think if you personally belong to this or that class. You are always wrongdoer whatever you do if you are the “White”. Watch liberal “Ted talk” with Lisa Diamond. The main argument of her was for changing the due process clause regarding LGBT community from the claim “born that way” to “dignity, autonomy, and self-determination” statement (17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia case has created such type of precedent; the Judge Neil Gorsuch delivered decision in June, 2020). Same thing (just in opposite direction) has already happened to “White” community. It is much better than the biological extermination of white race, however, it is first base to find the proper way for the Holocaust of Whites. Save the date, the Whites are only 10% of World population. It’s early days, however, we are already on the brink of extinction.

    PS
    Switch the centre of your self-importance (egocentric mind-set) when you talk by the yard regarding the “Whites” and “Race” to the real problem, or the consequences of such approach shall apply soon. You accelerate the progress of destruction by such articles.

  119. cassandra says:
    @Jeff Davis

    I wouldn’t worry too much about the Jews. If history is any indication, their predations follow a pattern, which, following the logic of human response to abuse, always ends in them coming to grief.

    Actually, I worry quite a bit.

    As a general princiole, I distrust “pendulum” theories of automatic self-correction like the one you suggest here. Corrections of this sort more resemble a support timber snapping under an excessive load than a gentle reversal of motion.

    To the contrary, I would worry about corruption and predation of any sort, since consequences of that sort of thing can cause incalculable suffering over centuries, and even when corrected (an optimisitic assumption), the recovery can take an equally long time and involve horrible excesses.

    Like viruses and cancers, it’s best to take social abuses seriously and attend to them openly and as soon as possible. Covering up these issues under a tissue of “hate”, or under reassurances that they will all somehow go away, is just procrastinaton that lets the problem metastaasize.

    • Thanks: Trinity
  120. @Robert Dolan

    Agreed. “Realist” is being a total jerk with his repetitive “question”. He might as well ask why marks (of any race) hand over money to scam artists (of any race).

    “Whining and complaining” about Jews’ masterful scamming and teamwork serves to educate the potential victims. More is needed, of course, but there is nothing wrong with teaching the marks a little self-defence.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan, Mehen
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  121. @Realist

    Oh my God!

    You are so right!

    Thank you for your superior wisdom!

    I should stop complaining about the influence of organized jewry right away!

    Your intelligence blows me away! How could I have been so blind?

    If whites keep complaining, that could be very bad for the jews!

    WTF was I THINKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well…..to make amends…..I’m going to write David Duke and Kevin Macdonald and some others, and implore them to stop speaking the truth about organized jewry……because we always want to do what is good for the jews.

    I can’t thank you enough!

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • LOL: 36 ulster
    • Replies: @Realist
  122. Corvinus says:
    @Badger Down

    Whites already are familiar with what you are saying. The Orcs have already invaded the Shire and are plundering it, and rather than intervene with direct action, you are still sounding the alarm. So it’s put up or shut up time.

    • Agree: HVM
    • Troll: GeneralRipper
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @HVM
  123. Mehen says:
    @Realist

    Why do you think gentiles allowed that to happen…and continue to let that happen?

    Because most Americwns have a poor understanding of the nature of Jewry. This is made worse by the fact that Jews can pass as “white” so their disproportionate accretion in certain sectors of society goes unnoticed, blending into the general “whiteness” as it were.

    By way of contrast — I can assure you that if it were instead, say, obviously Chinese-looking individuals who were at the head of every corporate news outlet, Hollywood studio, university board and bank, the reaction of the American public would be altogether different.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Realist
    , @Anon
  124. Che Guava says:
    @Joe Paluka

    They haven’t been drooling on the scale of Biden, though the drool is involuntary in his case.

    I suppose he was given anti-drool medicine just before he play-acted the Geneva meeting. OTOH, since it was all off-camera, I would not be surprised if he had a special aide to wipe his mouth at times.

    • Replies: @aj54
  125. Corvinus says:
    @geokat62

    “Do the ADL/SPLC suffer consequences when they express their hatred of whites, Corvy?“

    Exposing extremists is not hatred of whites. As far as consequences, those two groups receive condemnation and death threats for their actions.

    How would you define “anti-white”? What metrics are involved? What specific examples can you provide that demonstrate the definition in action? Must all whites abide by this criteria, lest they be deemed “anti-white”?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  126. Corvinus says:
    @Mehen

    “Because most Americwns have a poor understanding of the nature of Jewry.”

    To the contrary, we normies are quite astute of their nature. We simply have a different outlook, given our high IQ and high time preferences. You simply disagree with our assessment.

    • Replies: @White Elephant
    , @Mehen
  127. @Corvinus

    You are always goading people into doing violence.

    Ron should ban you.

    You’re either a FED or you’re just a tiresome stupid piece of shit.

    • Thanks: Mehen
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  128. Tony B. says:

    What a lot of unnecessary, wasted words. Here’s an article on hate and hate crime laws I wrote many years ago for The Spotlight, weekly of Liberty Lobby at that time:

    I have slightly updated and am recirculating this article published in The Spotlight newspaper of the Liberty Lobby before that organization was unlawfully destroyed by a Washington, DC bankruptcy judge who allowed the organization to be included in a bankruptcy case which had nothing to do with it.

    HATE GOOD, LOVE EVIL, OR GO TO JAIL
    A background commentary on hate crime laws

    By Tony Blizzard

    [MORE]

    “Hate-crimes” laws are not aimed at stopping hatred but at censoring truth telling. Hate crime laws are in reality an agenda to force toleration of the actions of those who hate Christian culture.
    To allow them to destroy everything the western world holds sacred while anyone lifting a finger to defend our cherished way of life is to be criminalized. In the U.S., as far back as the 1930s the question of whether hate should be outlawed had been broached by the enemies of truth, due largely to the Nazi movement in Germany and the America First movement’s exposures of Talmudic drum beating for U.S. involvement in what became WW2.
    Patriots who saw no reason for America to enter that war – except to save communism – were rounded up and tried for sedition in a soviet style political show trial.
    While every effort was made to present the defendants as haters of America, it was their internationalist accusers who harbored real hatred for defenders of true national principles.
    The propaganda barrage stigmatizing patriots as “haters” only escalated when the globalist United Nations came into existence after that destructive war, which did save communism utilizing American might.
    In a 1947 publication approved by Cardinal Spellman of New York, Rituale Romanum, the anti-hate issue was early put into proper perspective:
    “The long-range effects of this campaign [to criminalize selected hatreds] are even now evident. It is producing the ‘spineless citizen,’ the man who has no cultural sensibilities, who is incapable of indignation, who faces moral disaster, political disaster and impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country, nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He is universally tolerant, totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles he keeps them well concealed. He is a faceless, characterless puttyman.”
    Real men of that generation despised such people as “gutless wonders.” Today they are praised as “politically correct.”
    G. K. Chesterton, always ahead of his time, mused: “Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent’s faith is to say I must not discuss it.”
    That is exactly the censorship objective of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL), as the creator and promoter of “hate crimes” laws throughout the world. Those ADL conspirators work to nullify intolerance for evils they promote, arrogantly retaining for them- selves the right to be world arbiter of what will be tolerated and what will not, replacing the edicts of God and nature concerning right and wrong with their own total intolerance of anything in the way of their Talmudic world conquest agenda.
    In order to understand the true purpose of ADL written and lobbied “hate crime” laws, already in place in nations such as Germany, Canada and Britain – and scheduled by the ADL for every nation, it is necessary to understand something of the passion called “hate.”
    Universally acclaimed deep thinker of the ages, Thomas Aquinas, recorded that all passions stem from the single passion of love. Hatred, the “contrary of love,” Aquinas contended, is simply passion against that which would threaten a love. For instance, one’s hatred of poison is a reaction to love for one’s life. Because “hatred is based on love,” reasoned Aquinas, “it follows that hatred is a great power for good in man’s life. Hatred enables man to avoid the evils that would destroy him.” It is precisely the hatred for those evils now in the process of destroying western civilization which the ADL-written “hate crime” laws are designed to criminalize, neutralize and quiet, always in the name of undiscriminating tolerance. To thus “make putty” of the collective will for the defense of western man’s civilization is a necessity to the implementation of the new world order slave state of the global plantation. Those “plantation owners” are too few in number to conquer and rule without the manipulated cooperation of their victims.

    TRUE HATERS

    No mainstream media mention is ever made that the same forces who write laws to stymie the hatred of evils they sponsor, are the world’s real haters, especially intolerant of anything concerning Christ and Christianity. The reason for their intense hatred was given by the Pharisees when they demanded Christ’s crucifixion. Unless destroyed, they announced, he will “take away our place and our nation.” Their intense love of their exalted position among the Israelites, with attendant perks, was threatened by the superior teachings of Christ, who was drawing the people away from their control, freeing them by educating them in the truths of God, thus engendering their bitter hatred against Him. That hatred has not waned to this day among the Talmudic leaders of Judaism. It has been written into the Talmud itself. Those revealing today’s fabrications indoctrinated into Jewish culture may definitely take away that leadership’s “place and nation,” thus the vicious, hateful attacks on historical attempts to update “holocaust” information, list crimes of the political Zionist movement, explode the “chosen people” myth, debunk Jews as perpetual victims, expose the substantial Jewish role in organized crime and in high level financial misdeeds, etc. Especially if the growing education of the public in the criminal money creation scam, which has been perpetrated upon almost the whole world, is allowed to continue, will they lose their place and world rule as their dysfunctional money creation is the key to their success. Already the prostitute U.S. Congress has not been able to stop the introduction by honest representatives of bills designed to force that government to create honest, workable money. When successful, this change would spell the end of their criminal reign. No wonder they want to outlaw truth.
    Even before the ADL existed, in 1908, New York City police commissioner, Theodore A. Bingham, in reference to an investigation of the ongoing white slave trade, truthfully remarked that 50 percent of NY crime was committed by Jews. Bingham’s career was destroyed and such remarks have been banned from the media since. This event resulted in the creation of the powerful New York Kehillah, which instantly, in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, saw to it that a national magazine discontinued its series on the white slave trade after its introductory article.
    Likewise, major book publisher, George Haven Putnam, owner of Putnam and Sons, was forced, in 1920, to trash an already printed edition of the much maligned Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, heeding hardly veiled blackmail threats of bankruptcy from ADL member Louis Marshall, a forceful figure in New York politics as well as world Zionism.
    The SPOTLIGHT has very recently informed readers of ongoing censorship by this same ADL gang, which today uses total censorship power over all school texts, libraries and the establishment media, blacklisting all materials it will not tolerate while demanding courses on such as the diary of Anne Frank, whose uncle won a law suit in New York over publishing rights since he wrote most of it with a post-WW2 ball point pen. (And the case was instantly sealed.) Worse, agents of both the ADL and SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center, spawn of the criminally degenerate professional liar, Morris Dees), now have been given the ears of our police and military, converting them into knee-cappers for those professional haters in the name of eliminating hate. The police mistreatment of demonstrators against abortion child murder is a prime example of this brainwashed misuse of what were once constitutional peace keepers.
    All the while, outfits such as the ADL and SPLC are constantly blathering to the public on how it must tolerate any affront on Western culture lest it offend some thin-skinned pervert. Defense of family, community and nation against such evils is labeled “hateful” and progressively outlawed due to these same groups’ overt control of lawmaking bodies. Yet, ongoing destruction of western, especially Christian, entities by people who seethe with hatred for them is to be tolerated by “puttyman” or he will be jailed.
    Such an arrogant, in-your-face, double standard requires your intense hatred and opposition, as it will, if allowed to continue, destroy everything you love. Possibly even your life.
    -30-

  129. aj54 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    of course it is labeled as hate speech. Any remarks questioning the party line of the Holocaust, even nibbling around the numbers, any empathy towards any German civilian suffering or explanations of reasonable actions taken are branded hostile and thus labeled. The omissions are just a form of pubescent denialism. We know this is true. Just as any statement pointing out maltreatment of Palestinians is also branded. And it is not a necessary component for any Jewish or media outlets to do the branding. Every university graduate has been steeped in it and will gladly point out your bias for you.

  130. aj54 says:
    @Che Guava

    many antipsychotic drugs cause dry mouth

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  131. @Corvinus

    No,

    I’ll side with Mehen.
    Most Americans, British, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Spa……etc. have an incredibly poor understanding of the nature of jewry (I refuse to capitalize jew). And I would hardly call you a normie Corvinus because you’re posting on this site, meaning you’re searching for the truth and answers to the many questions you ask yourself, as to why society is the way it is. Normies, wouldn’t contemplate searching for a site like this, let alone visit it.

    Most people are utterly oblivious to the nature of jews for two reasons. Firstly they have no desire TO educate themselves on the nature of jews and secondly, everything they know about jews can be summed up in two words – ‘Schindler’s List’.

    • Thanks: Mehen
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  132. Corvinus says:
    @Robert Dolan

    “You are always goading people into doing violence.“

    No, I’m saying that people who are concerned about their situation take direct action.

    “You’re either a FED or you’re just a tiresome stupid piece of shit.“

    Yep, I’m from the FBI. You are being monitored. (sarcasm).

    • LOL: 36 ulster
  133. Mehen says:
    @Corvinus

    Your incoherent reply suggests to me I hit a nerve.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  134. W. Poe Whitesays:
    July 6, 2021 at 9:36 am
    There is a coherent definition of “hate speech,” viz. speech demonizing a group occurring as part of a psychological warfare campaign aimed at setting the targeted group up for attack. Hate speech is then more than merely expressing strong detestation of the group; it is an act of concerted psychological warfare. It is an example of “war by other means.”

    The use of the term “hate speech” by Jews is of course cynical. Jews deploy this weaponized phrase as part of a campaign to demonize the White race so as to facilitate the demographic dispossession of Whites in all White nations. Their very use of the phrase is itself an example of hate speech. Accusations of hate speech against Whites are part of the Jewish war by other means on Whites. They are – as they do so frequently – projecting their own intentions onto their target.

    There is a rational political purpose behind this projection: (1) to silence those (whether White or non-White) who tell the truth about Jewish power and Jewish goals in order to prevent political opposition to Jewish dominance; and (2) to intimidate and silence Whites into political passivity so that they cannot organize politically in their collective self-defense in time to stop their dispossession via replacement immigration. A multiracial population is being engineered into existence throughout the White nations. This Kalergian demographic revolution is the principal means by which the Jews will consummate their conquest of America and the entire West.

    Poe White comment from TOO

  135. Realist says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Your childish comments were a diversion to hide the fact that you have no idea how to answer my question…grow up.

  136. Realist says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Prove me wrong whiner.

    You’re the one doing the whining. Your post #36 was just pissing and moaning about how all Jews…which includes Ron Unz, are the scum of the earth.

    You are one fucked-up piece of shit.

  137. Realist says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    If a small group within a very large population commits Acts X, Y, and Z, then it is entirely appropriate to “blame” that small group for the crimes committed, if that is what the evidence reveals to be the reality.

    Why do you and the other piss and moan gentiles allow it??? Why did you let them get control???

    • Disagree: Badger Down
    • Replies: @Mehen
    , @SolontoCroesus
  138. bayviking says:

    Categorizing some crimes as “hate” while others not, is BS. Punish the behavior, not the words.

  139. “I have no need to apologize for any of this.”

    No, you don’t. Which begs the question why you feel compelled to take 7,000 words to explain “any of this.”

    What are you afraid of? Your opening is anything but a signal of strength. You should probably just throw in the towel. You won’t win with what you’ve got.

  140. Che Guava says:
    @aj54

    Well said, just the trick!

  141. @Robert Dolan

    I’m confused. You are saying the Jews are responsible for you being just another dumb cunt with too much time on his hands and an internet connection?

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  142. saggy says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer

    Don’t forget probably the greatest crime in history, the firebombing of the sixty largest cities in Japan save H and N, which were nuked – https://www.wired.com/2011/03/0309incendiary-bombs-kill-100000-tokyo/

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  143. @Jeff Davis

    But you have to admit that Jews really made a mess out of Russia, Sudan, Germany, Palestine, France, Sweden, Libya, Iraq, Syria, the UK, and the US. A heap of trouble.

  144. HVM says:
    @Corvinus

    The issue is what is to be done. I agree with Corvinus that much of what is written here I already know.

    What I really want to know is how to stop it. I do not agree with violence if that is what is being suggested because that will only backfire. Simply put those of us who have stepped outside of the cave are in a minority. The institutions are under their control. We could not win as aggressors.

    So what is needed is a better Psy-Op to counter the use of Anti-Semitism as a means to silence political opposition to the Jewish influence – better referred to as ZOG.

    I suppose the only real option is to get smart, opt-out, and create new institutions that are not co-opted. It is only through separation that we can be free of their influence.

  145. Realist says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    It often involves money, and in the cases of the many Jews who ultimately took control of the most successful media-communications enterprises…

    So gentiles sold out their own for a few shekels,

    Break the back of usury/the Federal Reserve system and the power of Jews might be somewhat contained.

    But nothing can destroy the centuries of mercantile experience and network-building that is a Jewish hallmark.

    So all is lost…nothing can be done…other than pissing and moaning, that is.

  146. Realist says:
    @Mehen

    Because most Americwns have a poor understanding of the nature of Jewry.

    But you, the all-knowing one, has a brilliant perception of what is happening.

    This is made worse by the fact that Jews can pass as “white” so their disproportionate accretion in certain sectors of society goes unnoticed, blending into the general “whiteness” as it were.

    Ashkenazi Jews are an ethnic group of the White race.

    • Replies: @Mehen
  147. Mehen says:
    @Realist

    Why do you and the other piss and moan gentiles allow it??? Why did you let them get control???

    Come now, Realist. Surely you realize the vanishingly small number of individuals “pissing and moaning” on this site would never have the ability or power to forestall such a very large socio-cultural phenomenon. I think you are being disingenuous in your line of questioning, but ok.

    I did make some attempt to answer your query (in the proper, broad/abstract sense) in comment #127, to which I have seen no reply.

    But since you are once again machine-gunning this thread with your incessant “Question”(tm), I would like to address something.

    In an earlier comment upthread, you posited that one reason for Jewish Rule is their higher IQ. This is what I too used to believe when I was a lolbert/normie only vaguely familiar with the JQ. However, over time (and due in no small part to the fine gentlemen here at UR), I have acquired a number of objections to this thesis.

    To begin with: there is the subtle but unstated insinuation that one’s position in the ruling class — if indeed a function of IQ — is somehow therefore “just”. But raw intelligence is essentially amoral….it’s a number on a test….it allows for a greater EFFICIENCY in our basic mechanical drives to acquire resources and reproduce. It has no normative content. Assuming one is not a hardcore nihilist, then one understands that intelligence is merely ONE component within our humanity, a humanity which also includes many “higher” ethical values.

    With that said, I have seen an analysis (I can’t find it at the moment – I believe it was Vox Day) which deconstructed the precious few studies purporting to show the Ashkenazim 1 standard deviation above white IQ. Chief among the problems were the small sample size and the study itself being funded and conducted by some Jewish organization with obvious self-interest in finding the “right results”

    But even if we allow for the possibility that the Ashkenazim are 1STD above whites, we run into another problem. When these sorts of comparisons (between Askenazim/Whites) are done, we are talking about averages. Even if the averages are 1STD apart, the two groups being compared are not completely discontiguous. The bell curves overlap, and there are a sizable number of individuals on the high-tail of the “lower” group who surpass the low-tail of the “higher” group.

    Now, with this in mind, consider the relative numbers between the populations. I no longer believe the statistic, but supposedly “Jews” make up 2% of the population. I haven’t done the math but it seems glaringly obvious to me that the high-tail of the white bell curve would VASTLY outnumber the number of Ashkenazim in the middle of it, in absolute numbers. Yet, when we look at Ashkenazim representation in certain high-profile/critical industries, they are STAGGERINGLY disproportionate. Which is proof enough to me that there is A LOT of ethnic networking going on to explain their numbers. (How one feels about the propriety of ethnic networking in general conditions, I suppose, how one feels about Jewish overrepresentation)

    In closing, I would suggest to you Realist that you pause and reflect before continuing to pepper us with your “Question”(tm) because it seems awfully close to justifying the “philosophy” of the con-man, who when asked if he ever feels guilt about all the people he has defrauded/ruined, responds, “Eh, they were dumb and gullible. They had it coming.”

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  148. @Johnny Rico

    Uh no John…..what I’m actually saying is that you are a faggot pedophile.

  149. Mehen says:
    @HVM

    I’ve often said one ironic trick is to use the EEOC regulations (which I’m sure the Jews were instrumental in crafting in the first place) to apply to their overrepresentation in those critical industries we all know about (news/Hollywood/academia/finance).

    Imagine Jews being only 2% of all those industries. Hell, I’d be happy even if they were just 50% of those industries!

    It’ll probably never happen though.

  150. Mehen says:
    @Realist

    Ashkenazi Jews are an ethnic group of the White race.

    You know what I meant, asshole.

    • Replies: @Realist
  151. @Realist

    Does the victim of a burglary “allow” the thief to creep into the house, threaten the residents and make off with treasure?

    No, acts committed by stealth, such as the establishment of the Federal Reserve system, were not “allowed,” they were the product of deception.

    As I read the history, Germany sought to wrest back to itself “control” over its culture, its political life and its finances. For over five years Germans used largely non-violent, even protective means to extirpate Jews from situations that Germans considered onerous.

    As I read the history, war crimes were committed against the German people (see #17, Carleton Meyer the Allied bombing campaign against German civilians) in retaliation for this affront to Jewish power, and with the connivance and complicity of numerous non-Jews.

    Eisenhower, with the help of Billy Wilder and other Hollywood figures (see Imaginary Witness: Hollywood and the Holocaust) focused the world’s attention on emaciated bodies in camps (most of whom were Roman Catholic, btw) as a way to distract from the 131 German cities Allied bombers had reduced to rubble.
    Ten years after the war ended the US Air Force would still not reveal to Kurt Vonnegut what the Air Force had done in Europe in WWII. ** I’m willing to bet that not one American in 50 knows that Dresden was deliberately bombed by US, much less that Americans practiced creating firestorms specifically to kill and destroy German civilians and their homes, and that prominent Jews played crucial roles in that genocidal activity.
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ut/ut0500/ut0568/data/ut0568data.pdf

    Jews have taken the leading, and most remunerative, role in propagandizing Jewish victimhood, but non-Jews are almost equally fully invested in sustaining the lie: ALL are guilty of crimes against humanity.
    The National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force, near the Savannah airport in Georgia, celebrates the “courage, character and patriotism” of the men who flew those missions that killed German civilians.

    Like a broken record Corvinus has been taunting, “What have you DONE”.
    Raising consciousness is a necessary first step. Undoing the lie is extremely difficult, but it is gaining ground. That those whose evil deeds are being exposed are reacting with increased cries of Hate Speech! is one sign that the target is nigh and consciousness-raising is bearing fruit.

    **

    I wrote the Air Force back then, asking for details about the raid on Dresden, who ordered it, how many planes did it, why they did it, what desirable results there had been
    and so on. I was answered by a man who, like myself, was in public relations. He said that he was sorry, but that the information was top secret still.
    I read the letter out loud to my wife, and I said, ‘Secret? My God-from whom
    ?’” Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

    • Agree: Mehen
    • Replies: @Realist
  152. @Mehen

    There are far more high IQ whites than high IQ jews.

    White kids comprise 70% of National Merit Scholars, but because of jews discriminating against whites, white kids only make up 20% of matriculants at the elite schools….while jews are 25/30%
    (2% of the population)

    jewish “success” can be explained by their hyper-ethnocentric nature….tribal networking…..and the unfair treatment of white gentiles.

    Realist is an asshole and you nailed his attitude.

    I observed the very same attitude from a jewish woman on Youtube a few years ago in reference to what happened to white people, and she came right out with it, “We outsmarted you. Too bad.”

    This is the mind of the psychopath…..basically they are willing to do anything…..engage in every sort of evil….and have no remorse whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  153. Thanks Jews.

    Goyim into Gayim.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  154. @HVM

    Gandhi kicked the Jews out of India with non-violence although the Hindus still suffered greatly from Muslim violence incited and financed by Jews.

  155. Corvinus says:
    @White Elephant

    “Most Americans, British, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Spa……etc. have an incredibly poor understanding of the nature of jewry”

    That is simply not the case. We have done our research. We make our own decisions about race and culture. You personally disagree with the conclusions we have drawn. That’s basically what it amounts to. But you really want to believe that the majority of citizens of the works are ignorant of “Jewish machinations”. The only thing I’ll add is that in my experience human beings are masters of self deception and self justification. Many if not most abusers of one stripe or another have stories they tell themselves which justify their actions in their own minds. Hat Tip—Barbarosa

    “Normies, wouldn’t contemplate searching for a site like this, let alone visit it.”

    To the contrary, normies who seek to learn more about different perspectives visit such places, and offer commentary. In that manner, it can clarify or challenge their own world view, provided one is not a slave to confirmation bias.

    • Replies: @Mehen
    , @White Elephant
  156. Corvinus says:
    @HVM

    “So what is needed is a better Psy-Op to counter the use of Anti-Semitism as a means to silence political opposition to the Jewish influence – better referred to as ZOG.”

    In essence, propaganda efforts, similar to the SJW agenda

    “I suppose the only real option is to get smart, opt-out, and create new institutions that are not co-opted. It is only through separation that we can be free of their influence.”

    By all means. That is your liberty. But I’ve heard this plan for the past 50 years. Perhaps it may gain further traction.

  157. RJJCDA says:

    In TETHERS OF THE SAPIANTS, when accused of harboring hate, a protagonist blurts out: YES IF HATE! I HATE EVIL, DON’T YOU?

  158. Corvinus says:
    @Mehen

    Actually, my message was clear.

    Anyways, some questions for you—Must all whites become “pro-white” advocates, lest they be deemed “anti-white”? Why? What does “pro-white” mean to you? What are the metrics? What are specific examples?

    • Replies: @Mehen
  159. https://archive.org/details/stefan-molyneux-jewish-hypocrisy-on-immigration

    Just so you know….you anti-white cocksuckers……the more you fuck with me the harder I’m going to push.

    That’s the way it works…..action…..reaction.

    You fucked with David Duke and KMAC and Taylor and Black and Mike Enoch…..and GUESS WHAT?

    You stupid fucks……it just makes people DOUBLE DOWN.

    • Replies: @36 ulster
  160. @SolontoCroesus

    Why limit ourselves to the atrocities against Germans AFTER the war ended (or in the last months when the outcome was clear). In fact, plenty of crimes against Germans took place before any invasion anywhere by Hitler occurred. In Poland, ethnic Germans were criminally mistreated by the Polish majority government for years before Sept. 1939, increasingly worse during the last 6 months. British-French oversight authorities did nothing about it. The French government was also punishing and impoverishing Germans who were forced to live under French rule following WWI (Alsace & Lorraine). The Allies who came up with the slavery-like terms of the Treaties of Versailles, Saint-Germain, and Trianon were equally abusive. All this BEFORE NS Germany lifted a finger against anyone else. Germany was always engaging in self-defense, and only self-defense. This is a huge omission that John Wear doesn’t correct in his overly numerous and largely politically correct articles. There are better sources than John Wear.

    • Thanks: Trinity
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @saggy
  161. Mehen says:
    @Corvinus

    Most Americans, British, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Spa……etc. have an incredibly poor understanding of the nature of jewry”

    That is simply not the case. We have done our research. We make our own decisions about race and culture. You personally disagree with the conclusions we have drawn.

    Who exactly is this “we” in your comment? I’m genuinely confused.

    “Normies, wouldn’t contemplate searching for a site like this, let alone visit it.”

    To the contrary, normies who seek to learn more about different perspectives visit such places, and offer commentary. In that manner, it can clarify or challenge their own world view, provided one is not a slave to confirmation bias.

    Ok. I think I understand you better.

    PSA: anyone who reads Unz Review is decidedly NOT a normie.

    As if it needed to be said.

    Are you, Corvinus, autistic or a hermit by any chance?

  162. Mehen says:
    @Corvinus

    Anyways, some questions for you—Must all whites become “pro-white” advocates, lest they be deemed “anti-white”? Why? What does “pro-white” mean to you? What are the metrics? What are specific examples?

    I’m actually mixed race so those particular questions are not a priority of mine.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  163. geokat62 says:
    @Corvinus

    Exposing extremists is not hatred of whites.

    Could you name some of the legitimate extremists the ADL/SPLC have exposed?

    As far as consequences, those two groups receive condemnation and death threats for their actions.

    If that were true, the culprits would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law… unlike whites who are the recipients of death threats or attempted murder for that matter.

    How would you define “anti-white”?

    How would you define “anti-semite”?

    • Replies: @Mehen
    , @Corvinus
  164. @Carolyn Yeager

    Mostly agree, except that in my estimation John Wear does very important work.

    No one person or book or website can do it all.

    The Jewish war against Hitler started within two weeks of his ascent to chancellorship. It’s not clear to me if Jews pulled Churchill along (and also FDR) or if Churchill’s door was half-way open before Felix Frankfurter knocked. It does seem clear that Jews in US had been maneuvering for some time to get a war on, and that they acted in coordination with influential Jews in London.

    One aspect that could use more reporting is the role of France in the turmoil in Europe, and especially the intractable and vengeful role the French took at Versailles. My own tendency is to focus extensively on the part played by the American zionists at Versailles. I could persuade myself that the Jewish delegation at Versailles was responsible for the death of Sir Mark Sykes and also, possibly, the sickening of Woodrow Wilson.

    Don’t forget that the first major outbreak of Coronavirus was in New York, and a Jew linked to AIPAC was named by NYTimes as Patient Zero.
    Does not seem coincidental.
    Curious that Sykes died of Spanish flu in France; that Wilson was sickened & debilitated by Spanish flu in France, but the Jewish delegation did not seem to have been affected by the Rockefeller virus.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  165. Mehen says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Triteleia:

    I’m curious if you are still following this comment thread?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  166. saggy says: • Website
    @Wignat is a slur

    What better strategy for the Jews than to saddle their enemies that they live in the midst of with a religion of love and ‘turn the other cheek’.

    Watch this remarkable video to see that English Zionism preceded Herzl, and of course the goyim fought WW I and WW II for the Jews, and the goyim are decimating Israel’s enemies in the ME. So, the strategy has been unbelievably successful.




    • Replies: @Wignat is a slur
  167. Mehen says:
    @geokat62

    Corvinus: How would you define “anti-white”?

    Geokat: How would you define “anti-semite”?

    Busted.

  168. saggy says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Germany was always engaging in self-defense, and only self-defense.

    Good grief. Hitler’s signed a pact with Stalin that led to the enslavement of half of Poland and much of eastern Europe. This deal with the devil emboldened him to attack Poland to regain control of lost territories. This was not ‘defense’ and he fell right into the Jews’ trap and western civilization may never recover. I’m a big fan of Hitler up till the Ribbentrop pact, but from that point on he was a disaster for the whites.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  169. 36 ulster says:
    @van helsing

    “Stalin”–born Josef Djugashvili, was Georgian by birth. He looks pretty Central Asian to me–not at all Levantine.

  170. @Mehen

    No, I went to the beach, danced outside at a party and had a lovely meal. Anything you wish you to point me to?

    • Replies: @Mehen
  171. @Sorel McRae

    Thanks, but there’s too many books to list. Regarding critical rebuttals to higher critical attacks on the Old Testament, the names to look for are R.K. Harrison, Gleason Archer, Oswald T. Allis, Walter C. Kaiser, and their respective books.

    There are also two recent books that go into some of the newer and more nuanced attacks on the reliability of the Old Testament, but I cannot recall them now. One of the works survey’s the historicity of Israel and the other work reviews the archeological reliability of the Hebrew Bible. Both books are in strong favor that we are given the historical truth about such events, and they provide their reasons for saying so as well as reply to liberal critics of the record.

    As for the New Testament and its historical accuracy and reliability, I urge you to read F.F. Bruce’s classic work, ‘The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” Look also for more recent authors as Craig Blomberg, Gregory Boyd, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Paul Rhodes Eddy, and special mention must be given to the books and articles written by Daniel B. Wallace.

    Most critics of the Old and New Testament records like Thomas Dalton have not seriously interacted with informed and careful Christian scholars who have thoroughly refuted such arguments. They simply would not make the sort of mistakes they do had they bothered to read the other side’s best rebuttals.

    • Replies: @Fox
  172. @Corvinus

    The “consequences” I was referring to were those of our time – namely, being de-platformed, banned from social media sites, doxxed, pressuring one’s employer to fire you because of ‘naughty’ speech, and having one’s entire life turned around all because someone doesn’t like our opinions.

    There was a time in America when this didn’t occur. It was assumed once could say what they wished without fear of getting physically attacked, having protesters invade your neighborhood looking for blood, or getting fired from your job. This was an America that in large measure was free, or at least it mostly respected freedom of speech. But not today.

    I’m simply asking for an equal-opportunity ‘Hate speech’ platform or an ‘equality’ of ‘Hate speech.’ But we can’t because Jews rule our society, and there are too many dumb White gentiles who love it so.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  173. @saggy

    What better strategy for the Jews than to saddle their enemies that they live in the midst of with a religion of love and ‘turn the other cheek’.

    Given that Christianity has been more anti-Jewish than any other religion (or no religion), it doesn’t seem like a very sucessful strategy.

  174. Mehen says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Sounds good.

    You’re a smart/insightful commenter and I do enjoy reading your challenges to whatever “consensus” exists here. Even if I disagree with you.

    But I do think you are missing out on some details/context that might perhaps modify your point of view if you stick around.

    I appreciate your understanding of the psyche of others, but that only takes you so far…

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
  175. anon[793] • Disclaimer says:

    Use the anti-White system against anti-White Whites: Write down every anti-White Whites name. Then report them for racism on social media. If you know where they work, let their employer know they said the Nword. If they work forJews, report them for denying the Holocaust. Show the enemies of you and yours no mercy.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  176. @Anon

    I am curious, what will you do when I prove your quote is false? What will go through your head? Will there be doubt or will there be doubling down and aggression? Or will you just change the subject? Will you feel shame for spreading lies?

    Let’s see.

    Your third quote:

    https://qr.ae/pG43B0

    I suppose you’ll ignore it, given that your second quote is a complete fiction, only to be found on the internet here and on the Occidental Observer.

    I’d feel weird collecting and copying and pasting fake quotes. How do you rationalise it to yourself?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  177. Realist says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    All your pissing and moaning leads to one conclusion…Ashkenazi Jews are a lot smarter than gentiles like you.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  178. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I suppose you’ll ignore it, given that your second quote is a complete fiction, only to be found on the internet here and on the Occidental Observer.

    I’m confused. Are you claiming the rabbi is being misquoted?

    Here’s a Bitchute video:


    starting @ 1:39, in which he states…

    “YOU WILL HAVE NO PLACE TO RUN. ISLAM IS THE BROOM OF ISRAEL.” RAV TOUITOU

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  179. @Corvinus

    “That is simply not the case. We have done our research. We make our own decisions about race and culture. You personally disagree with the conclusions we have drawn. That’s basically what it amounts to. But you really want to believe that the majority of citizens of the works are ignorant of “Jewish machinations”.”

    Corvinus,

    You are NOT by any means, a ‘normie’.
    You’re missing the point here. The very thing that separates the conspiracy ‘theorists’, the truthseekers, the skeptics is that they make their own decisions about race and culture and do their own research. The ‘normies’, that’s Joe & Jane Public, DO NOT, in the slightest, do their own research and make their own decisions about race and culture. They are, as everyone knows, ignorant of much, with their only opinion being the one that the msm feeds them through their control of the TV, print media, radio, film and music industries. As I stated in my previously reply to you, their opinion on jews is from Schindler’s List. They see them as what Hollywood portrays them as – victims, persecuted from millennia, the Hebrews, the chosen people, whom non jews should bow down too. Their opinion on jews is one of gross ignorance.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  180. @saggy

    Wow, Saggy. I have never been able to figure you out. Maybe you’re just a Pole.
    The Ribbentrop Pact was self-defense. Hostile forces faced Hitler on both east and west. The dispute with Poland was not for “lost territories.” Would you care to explain why you say so? Hitler’s resolve to lead Germany out of the morass it was trapped in following WWI may have been idealistic and even a long shot, but it was not “falling into the Jew’s trap.”
    Deciding who was right and who wrong 80 years after the whole action was completed, based on who won and who lost, as in your conclusion that ‘everything Hitler did was a mistake that he was tricked into by Jews’ is not an intelligent interpretation of events.

    You have not even made a dent in my self-defense statement.

    • Agree: Fox
    • Replies: @saggy
  181. Realist says:
    @Mehen

    You know what I meant, asshole.

    So the game is ad hominem…fuck you dickhead.

  182. HdC says:
    @Realist

    Well, I am not so sure about that.
    Intelligent individuals are able to predict with considerable accuracy the long-term effects of their action or in-action. For example: Planning for a retirement, especially now that life expectancy is well over 80 years in western countries.
    Jews appear to have considerable difficulties in foreseeing the effects of their behaviour. Otherwise, why have they been thrown out of well over 100 political entities (countries, states, principalities, cities, etc.) over the last 2000 years? Yes, I know the Jewish excuse for this… They hate us because we are rich…
    Here is an analogy: Suppose a buddy of yours complains that he’s been thrown out of 100 or 200 bars over his life time, and he blames the bars for discrimination of one sort or another. I would suggest that this is a problem with your buddy’s behaviour and NOT with the bar establishments.
    If your buddy is reasonably intelligent he will assess his behaviour and modify it so as to be permitted to enjoy the watering hole of his choice.
    Even animals are intelligent enough to adjust their behaviour very quickly after a SMALL number of uncomfortable occurrences.
    The Jews? Naw, even after more than 100 uncomfortable occurrences they still haven’t learned their lesson, but persist with their unappreciated behaviour.
    Is this the behaviour of an intelligent people? I certainly don’t think so.

    • LOL: Realist
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  183. HdC says:
    @Trinity

    Excellent and succinct summary!

  184. Che Guava says:
    @saggy

    Very true, but the firestorms unleashed on Hamburg, Dresden and other places in Germany were also fierce, and, like the post-war killing of Germans under Eisenhauer, Stalin, Churchill and Jews working for them, postwar, was immense.

    Bomber Harris and Curtis le May, should, if an afterlife exists, be in the lowest levels of hell. I am thinking Dante.

    An odd thing that most do not know, the original target of the plane that dropped the hell-bomb on Nagasaki was Kokura, the aircrew was swerving and confusing, too many. clouds for the original target, so they made the new course to Nagasaki.

  185. Realist says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Childish way to accept defeat.

  186. @geokat62

    There’s a clip in a video sourced from where, I don’t know, edited in what order, I have no idea, in a language, I don’t understand, of someone, of whom I also have no idea.

    Whose the weird Peter Pan looking fellow doing the presenting? Am I supposed to watch this garbled collection of edited talking heads?

    I have seen what happens with Trump and clips like this, it was often 100% misrepresentation, and that was only with dubious editing and none of the other confusing factors. Can I get a transcript from the actual source?

    Just on the face of it, saying that Islam is the broom of Israel, and it meaning what is implied here, is obviously wrong. Am I supposed to believe that Islam is a secret conspiracy of Jews? Or, if not, what exactly? Please be concrete.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  187. @Robert Dolan

    This is the mind of the psychopath…..basically they are willing to do anything…..engage in every sort of evil….and have no remorse whatsoever.

    All Realist is doing is taking one half of your argument and playing it against the other. I imagine his point is to have you fight your own inconsistencies. It is therefore extremely interesting that you typify him, who is merely representing half of you, in this extraordinary way.

    Would you be able to, or even happy to, act in the way which you allege Jews do?

    You are painting the world in terms of a Gentile-Jewish dichotomy that is also perfect, innocent naif versus totally ruthless psychopath. I wonder, in this world that you perceive, who do you actually hate more? Who really triggers your contempt? Your concept of the perfect saintly losers or your concept of the devilish psychopathic winners?

  188. Corvinus says:
    @Mehen

    “I’m actually mixed race so those particular questions are not a priority of mine.”

    Well, that is fine, but considering that you would be considered by some as a race traitor, thinking about and responding to those questions is of relevance.

    “Corvinus: How would you define “anti-white”? Geokat: How would you define “anti-semite”?
    Busted”

    More like deflection and avoidance on the part of Geokat. The focus of my inquiry is pinning down exactly what is and what is not considered “anti-white”. It is amazing to me that “pro-white” advocates (however that is defined) seem to run away from clearly and concisely articulating “anti-white”.

    Anti-semitism to me is when a person or group has openly stated and/or engaged in hostile acts rooted in the prejudice of Jews 1) to uniformly declare Jews as being patently inferior in a biological or social manner, and/or 2) to overtly state this group in a particular way constitutes a patent danger/threat to a society, and/or 3) to engage in systematic efforts to separate or remove them from positions in a society or in a society altogether through direct or implied political and social means not limited to coercion, force, legislation, and violence.

    Where it gets a bit tricky here is if it is anti-semitism when a person or group 1) make reference to Jews having engaged in behavior that seeks to destroy “white civilization” or “white societies” societies and/or 2) make reference to Jews having engaged in actions to gain control of the world at the expense of other groups and/or 3) make reference to Jews dominating media/entertainment, business, etc. with the goal to unduly “control” and “dominate” the masses. I believe in these three instances, it depends upon situation and context, and there will certainly be bitter disagreement, with Jews and non-Jews taking sides as to whether there was anti–semitism involved.

    “PSA: anyone who reads Unz Review is decidedly NOT a normie.”

    Whoever reads this fine opinion webzine may or may not be a normie. But there are normies who read it and/or make comments. You don’t have to believe this truth.

    “Are you, Corvinus, autistic or a hermit by any chance?”

    When you engage in ad hominem, you already lost the argument.

  189. @Priss Factor

    I suspect that this comment thread has a lot of people on it who are in fear of their own poorly understood sexual feelings and, instead of taking responsibility for their own confusion, have found it psychologically easier to attribute its cause to the Jews.

    • Disagree: Mehen
    • Replies: @Mehen
  190. Corvinus says:
    @White Elephant

    “You are NOT by any means, a ‘normie’.”

    Decidedly, I am.

    “The ‘normies’, that’s Joe & Jane Public, DO NOT, in the slightest, do their own research and make their own decisions about race and culture. They are, as everyone knows, ignorant of much, with their only opinion being the one that the msm feeds them through their control of the TV, print media, radio, film and music industries.”

    You significantly underestimate us and our ability to think critically when it comes to Jews.

    “They see them as what Hollywood portrays them as – victims, persecuted from millennia, the Hebrews, the chosen people, whom non jews should bow down too. Their opinion on jews is one of gross ignorance.”

    We realize more than you think. If you want to miscalculate how we arrive at our own conclusions, ones that counter your own narrative, go right ahead.

    • Troll: White Elephant
  191. Corvinus says:
    @RockaBoatus

    “The “consequences” I was referring to were those of our time – namely, being de-platformed, banned from social media sites, doxxed, pressuring one’s employer to fire you because of ‘naughty’ speech, and having one’s entire life turned around all because someone doesn’t like our opinions.”

    Yes, that happens. There has always been consequences–positive and negative–for stating one’s opinion openly. There is no such thing as “absolute freedom from consequences”. We are free to say what we want, realizing that there will be reactions to it.

    “There was a time in America when this didn’t occur.”

    When, exactly?

    “It was assumed once could say what they wished without fear of getting physically attacked, having protesters invade your neighborhood looking for blood, or getting fired from your job. This was an America that in large measure was free, or at least it mostly respected freedom of speech. But not today.”

    Nostalgia can play tricks on our minds.

    “I’m simply asking for an equal-opportunity ‘Hate speech’ platform or an ‘equality’ of ‘Hate speech.’”

    Again, you do have that now!

    “But we can’t because Jews rule our society…”

    Maybe. Then again, perhaps not.

    “and there are too many dumb White gentiles who love it so.”

    Wait, I thought whites overall have high IQs and high time preferences. Now you are implying that is not the case? Seems like “hate speech” to me…

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  192. @HdC

    Otherwise, why have they been thrown out of well over 100 political entities (countries, states, principalities, cities, etc.) over the last 2000 years

    I don’t find it remarkable that a minority, while existing in hundreds of countries, over two thousand years, has been thrown out a hundred times.

    That is less than once every two thousand years per country!

    I actually find the infrequency of it to be completely astonishing.

    I am also amazed that Jews were so often welcomed and treated so incredibly well for so long, whereas history for other groups tends to be one of repeated and extreme cyclical violence on the scale of centuries or only decades, in every country they exist, not just a drop in the ocean of hundreds of countries over millenia.

    Your point, repeated all over Unz, oh so knowingly, makes me think of when, as a child, another child told me “you know, using a toaster is more dangerous than swimming with a Great White Shark, as toasters kill many more people.”

    I feel a little embarrassed to recount that this argument may have seemed strong to me at the time.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @HdC
  193. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    There’s a clip in a video sourced from where, I don’t know, edited in what order, I have no idea, in a language, I don’t understand

    If you admit you don’t understand the language, your claim that the rabbi’s statement is “a complete fiction” is rather tenuous, no?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  194. @geokat62

    If you admit you don’t understand the language, your claim that the rabbi’s statement is “a complete fiction” is rather tenuous, no?

    I typed in the first phrase of words into Google and the only hits were here and a similarly anonymous comment at the Occidental Observer.

    This would be enough to give me confidence that it was a complete fiction, if it were originally spoken in English. I did not consider that it might have been a translation, meaning that the transcript would not come up in English. My mistake.

    Nonetheless, since the only source is that video, with all of the problems I noticed and which you have chosen not to address, instead focusing on this distraction, I can still confidently stand by my original description.

    Perhaps you will address those?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  195. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I don’t find it remarkable that a minority, while existing in hundreds of countries, over two thousand years, has been thrown out a hundred times.

    I think the data indicate they’ve been expelled over a thousand times from 109 different locations.

    https://www.docdroid.net/BZHplSm/the-complete-list-of-the-1030-jewish-expulsions-in-human-history-pdf#page=38

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  196. @geokat62

    I don’t think the data indicates what you say at all. It actually confirms my point that Jews were extraordinarily well welcomed, treated and kept, for a minority. I am completely astonished by how well, in fact. Maybe they really are blessed. I have no other way to explain it.

    See:

    1. There are ~1000 expulsions on that list, of which many of them are exaggerated by Jewish historians.

    2. The timeline stretches back ~3000 years.

    3. This makes 1 exaggerated expulsion every 3 years, which is pretty much the norm for serious oppression of a minority in any place in most of history. Even the ability to be expelled would mark out a group as living better than many “lower orders”.

    But, Jews existed in thousands of cities.

    This means that Jews were only treated to an expulsion level oppression, which is less than most minorities regularly got, in any given place they lived, once every thousands of years.

    That is unbelievably infrequent. If I believed they existed, I would think you must be some sort of Hasbara propagandist.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  197. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Perhaps you will address those?

    No need. I was fortunate enough to find a website that linked to the good rabbi’s YouTube channel, Rav TOUITOU DAVID… Baruch HaShem!

    It’s still active.

    The original video from which the excerpt was drawn is called Mashiah ou es tu ?, posted by Rav David Touitou on Nov 20, 2013:

    Here’s a transcript of the two most relevant segments from his video:

    “You will pay dearly for it Europeans! To such an extent that you have no idea! And you will have no place to run to. Because all the evil you have done to Israel [the Jews], you will pay for it a hundred-fold. When Italy will be gone, when Edom (that is why Christianity’s headquarters, which come from ‘Hessal’, is there), when that place will be gone, and that’s what Islam is going to do. Islam is the broom of Israel, you have to know it. So, instead of having us do all the job, He sends Ishmael to solve the problem. When he is going to clean all this and that the wine will come back home, then it’s Melah Ramachiar(?)…

    

“What you are undergoing in France, in Europe, which is so scary, it should be for us the most beautiful news of our Jewish history. Finally, we begin to approach it! Finally, we begin to realize what the sages had predicted before. What I told you before is written in Sanhedrin [book of the Talmud]. The Messiah will come only when Edom, Europe, Christianity will have fallen completely. So, I am asking you the question: Is it good news that Islam is invading Europe? It’s excellent news! It’s announcing the arrival of the Messiah! Excellent news!”

    https://forge-and-anvil.com/2019/08/19/the-west-is-edom/

  198. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I don’t think the data indicates what you say at all.

    What in particular of my following statement is inconsistent with the data:

    I think the data indicate they’ve been expelled over a thousand times from 109 different locations.

    I would think you must be some sort of Hasbara propagandist.

    That’s funny… the exact same thought crossed my mind, as well, lol.

  199. @geokat62

    Ok, now we that have established that there is an actual source, which is good, and I thank you, we can evaluate, in context, what it actually means.

    I think it clearly means something very different, even opposite, from how it was previously presented.

    From your selectively provided transcript, it appears that a Rabbi, who is I don’t know who, believes that Islam arriving in Europe is a sign of the end times.

    In particular, he seems to assume that his presumedly Jewish Israeli audience would be aghast, not happy, at Islam coming to dominate Europe, just as Christians would be aghast at the arrival of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, but, in the same way, he thinks that this terrible event is thankfully a sign of something amazing that will happy afterwards.

    In other words, the quote was originally presented as if Israelis loved that Muslims were moving en masse to Europe, when obviously Israelis are terrified of this eventuality. The Rabbi seems to be trying to soothe his Israeli audience by spinning a stereotypically millenarian trope where bnightmarish things can be seen as signs of eventual salvation.

    You do realise that Jewish Israelis would, if they had the vote, swing at least 80-20 towards there being zero Muslim immigration to Europe? They aren’t complete idiots.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  200. Che Guava says:

    I will add though, that Japanese accounts over more than a thousand years are inaccurate, timing of the start is off by almost a thousand years. An expedition from Wei China found a witch-ruled people, and they called the queen 卑弥呼, which means horrible voice or call.

    The state from which the state of now descends was founded much further north, the nobility consisted of 60% Korean, with a mix of their states of origin, but Kudara or Paekche, same place, Jap. and Kor. terms, resp.

    Some of the Korean nobles also came from the other three major polities in the Korean peninsula at the time, At that time, korean people also had big states to the north of the peninsula, but they don”t have mvch to do with Japan. 

    Aside from the 60% Koreans, at the time, were also 20% Chinese, and 20% native Japanese, whatever that meant at the time, but sure did not include Ainu.

    One must always remember that the founding of our state was always based on some level of Korean involvement.

    Parts of the political right, including the ‘Liberal-Democratic Party’ always hated the Heisei emperor, just for him stating the obvious:I have some Korean descent.

  201. @SolontoCroesus

    Mostly agree …

    With what (of that which I wrote) do you not agree?

    John Wear does very important work.

    Yes, you’ve offered that opinion before. All revisionist writing on the Hitler/Holocaust hoax can be said to be “important.” But I said ‘the best’ and ‘important’ doesn’t signify ‘the best.’ Shouldn’t we be recommending the best, not just the easiest and most convenient?

    What do you consider the beginning date of Hitler’s “ascent to chancellorship?”

    WWII was the continuation of WWI, which didn’t quite bring about the fall of Germany, so of course Churchill’s door was open. FDR’s too. I don’t know what you did to earn that gold star you used to have in front of your name, but I’m glad those things are gone.

  202. Fox says:
    @RockaBoatus

    The first time I came across scholarly (Catholic) writings about the origins of the Gospels was from books a priest lent me on the subject. I think they were the books from his seminary days. I had thought up to that time that the Gospels had been written by a known person at a known time, but they were all put on paper long after Jesus’ death- hence there is “history”. There were apparently numerous authors, co-authors and editors to these documents, and the very style shows that they can’t have been faithful recordings of actual events or Jesus’ words.
    Hence, the origin of these writings can t best be partially confirmed and certainly not taken as faithful records.
    As far as the Old Testament goes, the situation e possibly much different?

  203. Thomas Dalton: “Christianity was thus the greatest manifestation of Jewish hatred ever conceived.”

    It’s very good to quote Nietzsche’s insightful remarks, as they deserve much more widespread appreciation. But unfortunately the overall thrust of this article is completely retarded. Arguing that Jews are the real haters is on the same order of logic as whining that Democrats are the real racists. This is stupid because such arguments only serve to further demonize hatred and racism.

    It would be much better to understand that hatred and racism are natural and to be expected. In fact, not only are they natural, but both are essential for whites to develop in themselves if the white race is to be preserved. A religion such as Christianity works against this because it makes Love into God, and a Devil of Hate. Such a worldview constitutes rebellion against reality itself, the attempt to set up an impossible utopia, which is in fact the Christian stock-in-trade. Its hatred for Hate is just another example of what makes the Christian religion incompatible with preservation of the white race.

    • Agree: commandor
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  204. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The Rabbi seems to be trying to soothe his Israeli audience by spinning a stereotypically millenarian trope where bnightmarish things can be seen as signs of eventual salvation.

    Soothe the minds of Israelis?

    First off, why would you assume his audience was Israeli, especially since he was addressing his audience in the French language?

    In other words, the quote was originally presented as if Israelis loved that Muslims were moving en masse to Europe, when obviously Israelis are terrified of this eventuality.

    The quote was originally presented for a completely different reason. This particular rabbi was just one of many other rabbis who were all singing off the same hymn sheet. They were all emphasising that Judaic eschatology is based on three conditions being satisfied:

    1. Amalek must be destroyed
    2. the third temple must be built
    3. the Mosiach must be anointed

    So, according to this rabbi, Ishmael will do half the job of destroying amalek for Jacob by helping taking out Edom… “excellent news,” indeed!

    • Agree: Mehen
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  205. @geokat62

    Soothe the minds of Israelis?

    First off, why would you assume his audience was Israeli, especially since he was addressing his audience in the French language

    It seems that he is based in Israel and is highly religious, so I assumed that he talking to the formerly French Israelis who have run away from Muslim anti-Semitism in France.

    Have you noticed that every time I make a point which you can’t answer, you ignore it and obsess over little details?

    It was obvious that he assumed his audience would be terrified of Muslim immigration into France and that he didn’t support it, so much as saw it as a sign of the end times.

    All religions with an end times predict that terrible things will happen at that point. They also all see that those things will pass and counsel their followers to welcome these and accept such suffering, but it does not mean that they actually wish that suffering.

    You sound like those idiot Jewish journalists who accuse Evangelicals of wanting all of the Jews to die because some Evangelicals see that as a sign of the end times.

    It is also like accusing Christians of fomenting all famines and plagues because they are a sign of the end times and Christians want Christ back.

    How does it make you feel when you have convinced yourself that everything bad in your life is a Jewish plot against you?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  206. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    It seems that he is based in Israel and is highly religious, so I assumed…

    Oh, you assumed. Well, it seems you have a special knack for assuming, lol.

    It was obvious that he assumed his audience would be terrified of Muslim immigration into France and that he didn’t support it, so much as saw it as a sign of the end times.

    He didn’t support it? Then why did he regard a homogeneous Europe as “a problem” that Islam will solve…

    … and that’s what Islam is going to do. Islam is the broom of Israel, you have to know it. So, instead of having us do all the job, He sends Ishmael to solve the problem.

    You sound like those idiot Jewish journalists who accuse Evangelicals of wanting all of the Jews to die because some Evangelicals see that as a sign of the end times.

    Some evangelicals see it as a sign of end times? I thought this aspect was an integral part of all evangelical theology? Do you mind clarifying which evangelicals don’t envision a rapture where those Jews who reject Christ will be consumed in a lake of fire for all eternity?

    How does it make you feel when you have convinced yourself that everything bad in your life is a Jewish plot against you?

    That didn’t take long… “you got joo on the brain, goy?” lol!

    Hasbara translation: “stop connecting the dots, goy. I’m not able to stop you with rational argument, so I’ll try stopping you with ad hominem attacks, instead.”

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  207. @geokat62

    You seem to be no longer trying to engage, and are instead playing to the crowd.

    Let me ask you one thing, if someone believes in heaven, and that it is the best place ever, and that their parents will go there when they die, does that mean that they will conspire to kill their parents?

    You could even selectively quote them in a reading, at their parents’ funeral, welcoming their parents’ death as God’s work, and that they are better off in heaven; but if you used that quote to accuse them of murdering those parents, you would sound like a total psychopath. I would not recommend you do it, or, if you must do that type of thing, save it, as you have, for anonymous environments like Unz Review.

    One more thing, and I think this is vital advice, any motivation which you can imagine someone else has, you must also be able to have. It is in your imagination after all. You would benefit from reflecting on this.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  208. Corvinus says:
    @geokat62

    “Could you name some of the legitimate extremists the ADL/SPLC have exposed?”

    LOL, I see you are playing coy here. The New Black Panther Party, the Aryan Strikeforce, and the Jewish Defense League are but three groups out of several hundred.

    “If that were true, the culprits would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law… unlike whites who are the recipients of death threats or attempted murder for that matter.”

    Whites and non-whites receive those threats, my white friend, and if a law enforcement investigation bears fruit, those responsible are brought to justice. Would you agree?

    “How would you define “anti-semite”?”

    LOL, I see you are up to your old tricks of ducking and dodging. I already defined it. Your turn… How would you define “anti-white”? What metrics are involved? What specific examples can you provide that demonstrate the definition in action? Must all whites abide by this criteria, lest they be deemed “anti-white”?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  209. Corvinus says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “It would be much better to understand that hatred and racism are natural and to be expected.”

    Based upon fear and loathing, yes.

    “In fact, not only are they natural, but both are essential for whites to develop in themselves if the white race is to be preserved.”

    I would say the white race can be preserved in different ways that do not meet your demand. So, must ALL whites must do exactly as you say?

    “A religion such as Christianity works against this because it makes Love into God, and a Devil of Hate. Such a worldview constitutes rebellion against reality itself.”

    That is the beauty of Christianity, which you tarnish and mar with your vileness.

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  210. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    You seem to be no longer trying to engage, and are instead playing to the crowd.

    One more thing, and I think this is vital advice…

    Are you in psychology by any chance? lol!

    Let me ask you one thing, if someone believes in heaven, and that it is the best place ever, and that their parents will go there when they die, does that mean that they will conspire to kill their parents?

    Isn’t it true that the religious and secular organisations are working hand in hand to fulfill the end times prophecies of messianic Judaism, including ushering in the Messianic Age?

    My concern is preventing the Jewish Century from becoming the Jewish Millennium.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  211. geokat62 says:
    @Corvinus

    LOL, I see you are up to your old tricks of ducking and dodging. I already defined it. Your turn… How would you define “anti-white”?

    I’ll define it for you when we both are sent to the gulags, promise.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  212. @geokat62

    My concern is preventing the Jewish Century from becoming the Jewish Millennium.

    Interesting, and how are you, as an individual, working constructively towards that prevention? Do you feel that the effect you have by posting here is worth the personal sacrifice in time and in opportunity that you are making? Is that why you post here?

    Also, what do you mean by Jewish Century and Millenium?

    Isn’t it true that the religious and secular organisations are working hand in hand to fulfill the end times prophecies of messianic Judaism, including ushering in the Messianic Age?

    Watch out! Dan Brown might sue you for ripping off his particularly stupid fiction.

  213. Mehen says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I suspect that this comment thread has a lot of people on it who are in fear of their own poorly understood sexual feelings and, instead of taking responsibility for their own confusion, have found it psychologically easier to attribute its cause to the Jews.

    Tsk tsk. And this, after I had already praised you, Triteleia.

    While I do occasionally appreciate your psychological insights, I’m sorry to tell you that this sort of rejoinder is garbage-tier. Even worse, it resembles the sort of “pathologizing of Gentile culture” which the Frankfurt School is notorious for. Which is to say, the Frankfurters “reimagined” the normal, healthy response of the Gentile biological organism defending its “cultural space” as “dysfunctional” or “fascistic” by way of specious psychological bafflegab.

    But no matter. I see here that Geokat has made short work of you.

    I do hope you stick around, though. As I said, an exposure to we “deplorables” just might widen your perspective a bit.

    You will see.

    Oh….you WILL see.

    Do you SEE now??? lol

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  214. @Mehen

    Disagree. I have no problem with the complexity of sexuality. I am therefore not pathologising, and if you don’t see that “Priss Factor” is one big bundle of sexual confusion, then you haven’t been reading his posts. Even just his name!

    People would find their sexuality a lot less scary if they could introspect and see how a lot of it is no more than primitive spirituality.

    They would also understand why a society that is excessively materialistic, would have an excessive focus on sex, and why, at the same time, it would somehow be strangely un-sexy.

    I see here that Geokat has made short work of you.

    By arguing that Israelis are secretly conspiring to fill Europe with Muslims, which would be a disaster for them, but would also bring their messiah into the world?

    By doing this, he has only succeeded in demonstrating how excessively this belief must serve him, for it to force him into such contusions over a hypothesis so fanciful.

    • Replies: @Mehen
    , @geokat62
    , @Mehen
  215. Mehen says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I’m too drunk for a good reply, but…

    An advocate of Erich Fromm, I take it?

  216. geokat62 says:

    Telegram comment posted by Eric Striker:

    The current debate among elites is over the domestic and international rise of men and movements challenging free market liberalism, globalization, and erosion of ethnic homogeneity and national sovereignty.

    There is one side, featuring some very smart gentiles and a couple Jews, saying the system should provide some concessions on these topics (deindustrialization, mass immigration, privatization, etc) to save the bigger system.

    The other side, which is pretty much exclusively Jewish (Anne Applebaum, Daniel Ziblatt, Bernard Henri Levy) calls on rulers to assassinate, imprison and bomb anyone who criticizes the existing global order.

    It’s obvious that the second group is getting its way.

    https://t.me/EricStrikerTRS/9011

  217. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    By arguing that Israelis are secretly conspiring to fill Europe with Muslims, which would be a disaster for them, but would also bring their messiah into the world?…

    Why would it be a disaster for the Israelis if Europe becomes overrun by Muslims? Once Edom is destroyed, they will then turn their attention to Ishmael. As mentioned, destroying Amalek is one of the three preconditions for ushering in the Messianic Age.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  218. Mehen says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    They would also understand why a society that is excessively materialistic, would have an excessive focus on sex, and why, at the same time, it would somehow be strangely un-sexy.

    This is a really good point actually.

    I’ve since moved from reductionistic materialism towards something approximating philosophical Idealism (Hard Problem of Consciousness and such).

    What do you think of Willhelm Reich, if you don’t mind me asking?

    • Replies: @Mehen
    , @Triteleia Laxa
  219. Mehen says:
    @Mehen

    “When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and life stands explained” – Mark Twain

    • LOL: Triteleia Laxa
  220. HdC says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    You’re missing the point.
    Fact is the Jews have been thrown out of a substantial number of countries (however defined). The Jews claim that the reason is that they are rich and successful. I don’t think so.
    The reason is their behaviour that’s judged to be detrimental by the natives; and Jews are too stupid to modify their behaviour to make it less detrimental to their host society.
    As I stated in my earlier post, even dogs (and lesser creatures also) learn very quickly which behaviour is unacceptable by their host. But Jews… More than 100 expulsions and not one iota of behaviour adjustment. That, by any criterion you choose, is not the behaviour of intelligent beings.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  221. @Mehen

    Thanks.

    Situating consciousness back into the body is a good idea. The body provides a way to access easy “metrics”, but please don’t confuse metrics with the actual goal.

    Breathing exercises, sex, hallucinogens, fasting, yoga, exercise, alcohol, self-harm (no thanks), dynamic meditation, manual labour, playing an instrument, Reichian massage, Reiki, and more, are all ways in which various systems have tried to get people to reconnect with their “soul”, via their body.

    This is good, but don’t be like be a hypothetical prehistoric man with a Skype call on a mobile phone. Don’t think that you are talking with the phone, the object, not via the phone, the actual person.

    Also, phones can be used to communicate, or they can be a mindless distraction.

    Pay attention you yourself and learn the difference, and one day you won’t even need the phone at all.

  222. @HdC

    Fact is the Jews have been thrown out of a substantial number of countries (however defined). The Jews claim that the reason is that they are rich and successful. I don’t think so.

    I have seen many different explanations advanced by Jews for this. Each one seems to me to be more revealing of the individual Jew’s neuroses than of what actually caused the expulsions in the past.

    Your choosing to hyper-focus on one claim, I find to be similarly revealing of you.

    As for the expulsions, I don’t try an explanation, that feels absurdly hubristic and reductionist to me. “One simple trick to explain a thousand events, in a hundred locations, over three thousand years!”

    Instead, I notice that Jews seem to have been astonishingly well-treated for a distinct minority in human history. This leads me to wonder why? I really have no idea.

    I certainly don’t think that they could be the most prized, best treated minority in human history by being both stupid and malign.

    Why do you think that they have been so incredibly valued?

    • Replies: @HdC
  223. @geokat62

    Why would it be a disaster for the Israelis if Europe becomes overrun by Muslims? Once Edom is destroyed, they will then turn their attention to Ishmael. As mentioned, destroying Amalek is one of the three preconditions for ushering in the Messianic Age.

    This is like a bad Dan Brown novel. It would make a nice hybrid genre, if combined with Shamir and The Saker’s works of geopolitical fan fiction.

    In reality, just look at a map of Europe and the Middle East. Israel is located between the Christian world and the Muslim world.

    Now, colour all of the Muslim countries in red. Israel looks quite vulnerable.

    Now, colour in all Europe in red to symbolise Muslims coming to dominate Europe.

    Israel looks insanely vulnerable and completely engulfed.

    I don’t think it should be hard to see why Israelis would be terrified of this.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  224. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I don’t think it should be hard to see why Israelis would be terrified of this.

    I posted this comment seven years ago on Unz:

    This meme is what motivated Anders Breivik to slaughter 77 people in Norway. The group behind this attempt to hype the threat from “radical Islam” is called the Clarion Fund. They produced the trilogy of films: Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, The Third Jihad, and Iranium.

    Their objective is to undo the harm done by the Frankfurt School. The FS identified nationalism as the root cause of the holocaust. To ensure that another holocaust never occurred again, the FS prescribed cultural Marxism (better known as Political Correctness) as the antidote to nationalism. The Clarion Fund is keen on destroying PC, especially in Europe, as the birthrate of Muslims is outstripping that of Christians. The concern is that the jungle will be expanding rather than contracting, thereby making it less safe for the villa.

    So, there is indeed a delicate balancing act being played by Jewish Supremacist Organisations (JSOs)… they wish to destroy the homelands of Esau, but they must be careful to prevent one dominant group from taking over. So, we’ll continue to see these contradictory actions to keep things in a state of disequilibrium, where everyone is at each other’s throats, while Eretz Yisrael keeps inexorably expanding.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  225. Very good article, gets to the point of how ridiculous hate speech is.

    Author left out 1 Thessalonians 2:15, “The Jews are the enemy of all mankind”.

    I disagree on the part though about Christian values being not as good as aristocratic values. I may be biased, but there is no way that aristocrats, nobles, rich people, kings, whatever, or the eagles in the example, are not natural haters as well. They are often moreso haters I think, arising largely from jealousy, ego, envy…the more you have, the more you want, and it’s never enough, and it’s never good enough to be second best. And eagles protecting their young are I’m sure every bit as much haters as the lambs watching out for themselves.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  226. @geokat62

    What psychological and spiritual characteristics do you see is what you term “JSOs”?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  227. Corvinus says:
    @Johnny Johnny

    “but there is no way that aristocrats, nobles, rich people, kings, whatever, or the eagles in the example, are not natural haters as well.”

    That is not “natural hate”, but “learned hate”.

  228. Corvinus says:
    @geokat62

    “I’ll define it for you when we both are sent to the gulags, promise.”

    As I suspected, you, just like the others, merely use “pro-white” and “anti-white” as an empty slogan to rally behind. Maybe someday a commenter here on this fine opinion webzine provide an in-depth response.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  229. geokat62 says:
    @Corvinus

    Maybe someday a commenter here on this fine opinion webzine provide an in-depth response.

    Poor, Corvy. I was prepared to provide you with a more tangible definition of anti-white, but you prefer the mumbo jumbo you came up with when asked to define anti-Semite.

    Well, here’s you definition thrown right back at you:

    “Anti-white to me is when a person or group has openly stated and/or engaged in hostile acts rooted in the prejudice of Whites 1) to uniformly declare Whites as being patently inferior in a biological or social manner, and/or 2) to overtly state this group in a particular way constitutes a patent danger/threat to a society, and/or 3) to engage in systematic efforts to separate or remove them from positions in a society or in a society altogether through direct or implied political and social means not limited to coercion, force, legislation, and violence.

    Where it gets a bit tricky here is…” blah, blah, blah.

    Look forward to seeing you critique the definition that you, yourself, formulated. If anyone can do it, it’s you! lol

    • Agree: Mehen
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    , @Corvinus
  230. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    What psychological and spiritual characteristics do you see is what you term “JSOs”?

    Hasbara translation: “Look into your navel, goy, and gaze!” lol

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  231. @geokat62

    Hasbara translation: “Look into your navel, goy, and gaze!” lol

    Narcissus didn’t wither, shrivel and die, while staring at his reflection, because he knew it was him and he loved himself.

    Instead, the curse from the Gods was all-powerful, because he had never looked at himself before, and so did not even know what he was looking at.

    It is always interesting how a shallow person will choose to defend against seeing themselves. It is usually that whatever they see outside as invasive, is merely a mirror image of what they, mistakenly, think they would find within.

    Notice my original question: What psychological and spiritual characteristics do you see in what you term “JSOs” (Jews)?

    I only asked you to describe something you perceive in the outside world, but even you have the awareness to know that it is really within. You are the Jew, which you hate, even if that Jew is as misunderstood, as you misunderstand the outside world. I feel sorry for that Jew. He has a harsh, judgemental and dark existence.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  232. Corvinus: “That is the beauty of Christianity, which you tarnish and mar with your vileness. ”

    So full of hate!

    1 John 4:20
    20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

    Poor little Christian. Can’t even abide by his own philosophy!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  233. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I only asked you to describe something you perceive in the outside world, but even you have the awareness to know that it is really within.

    Like I said, you must be in psychology, lol!

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  234. @Anon

    Much of your post has some validity to it, however, the term Neo-Nazi, has very little to no meaning. I could elaborate on why but I do not want to bore people with a lesson on semantics and or, rhetoric.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  235. @geokat62

    Have you seen the film Solomon Kane? I believe it is available on Netflix.

  236. saggy says: • Website
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I’m Irish ;). Hitler signed the Ribbentrop pact to avoid a 2-front war, and it was an incredible blunder. He wanted to attack Poland to get back Danzig and the corridor, i.e. lost territories.

    The Jews wanted a war with Germany, Stalin wanted the war between England and Germany. Hitler signed the pact and foolishly thought he could attack Poland and England would stay out of the war.

    This is the well known Suvorov claim, which seems obviously correct to me.

    The Jews and Stalin got what the wanted. The west suffered a terrible blow and things are rapidly getting worse even now.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Fox
  237. geokat62 says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    I could elaborate on why but I do not want to bore people with a lesson on semantics and or, rhetoric.

    If only we could get Corvy and his sidekicks to do the same, lol.

  238. @saggy

    “I’m Irish.” Yes, I remember now you answered that question from me before. Maybe Trinity will have a comment on that.

    What you’re doing is to take your ‘items’ in isolation, as though the only actor was Hitler and he had all options available to him, but he chose the one that led to the worst possible result — the supremacy of Jews over Europeans that we’re experiencing today. Very unworthy approach which deserves condemnation from every honest observer.

    “Avoiding a 2-front war” is a defensive strategy. War was heading for Germany whether it wanted one or not.

    “The Jews wanted a war with Germany.” Everyone wanted a war with Germany! Again, how was Germany to avoid its fate — by acquiescing at every turn? What are your suggestions for that? Leave the millions of ethnic Deutsch to be destroyed in Poland so as not to go past the artificial line drawn in the sand by the British? HOW was succumbing to the Jews going to save the Western world from the Jews and Stalin?

    The problem was that the European states (incl. the Irish) jumped to the defense of the Jews; only Hitler’s regime had the will to resist them, stupid or not. Those heroes left a legacy of bravery and will that we can’t shake off, that still inspires us. Unfortunately, it’s all lost on you.

  239. I absolutely understand why most of hate speech. It remains one of the toughest skills to master. And it is also ranked 1 or 2 of people’s greatest fears.

    But if you practice. If you study. If you allow yourself to be coached and mentored. You may not grow to love speech, but you can overcome your hatred in due time and master the art of speaking in public and private settings.

    Your hate of speech can be overcome.

    At EliteCommInc. we understand your hatred and we will walk with you through to be an overcomer of your hate of speech.

    Smile

  240. Anon[390] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mehen

    “I can assure you that if it were instead, say, obviously Chinese-looking individuals who were at the head of every corporate news outlet, Hollywood studio, university board and bank, the reaction of the American public would be altogether different. ”

    Would it if these Chinese-looking individuals were at the center of their religion?

  241. Fox says:
    @saggy

    Saggy, since your words indicate to me that, although you understand much of the German position, you are putting blame on Hitler where it ought not be put.

    After the Stalin-Ribbentrop pact was signed it was made public. It therefore had the function to disappoint French-English hopes to draw the SU into the anti-German front they intended to create in a repetition of the encirclement they created prior to the First War, which they quickly turned into a worldwide war, a World War. It also had the function to discourage French-English intrigue, the center of which was to entice Poland through its foolhardy leadership into her drive to war with Germany. The records show that Poland had several times before tried to interest France to engage in a war against Germany (I think that was in 1934 and in 1936, and possibly in the 1920s already).
    A third objective was, should war come, to not have to reckon with a Soviet threat.
    A fourth objective was to show the Poles that they ought to seriously consider a longterm good neighborhood with Germany and come in good faith to an agreement on the question of Danzig and the Corridor. The Poles took substantial German territories after 1918, which, after the fact, always received the assent of the League of Nations (= the French-English-Italian coalition to guarantee and maintain the status quo as forced with the various “Treaties” in 1919). Up to early 1939 the Poles were willing to discuss these questions, and interested in coming to a mutually agreeable solution, but then it seems, Poland’s mind was changed by communications through dark channels.
    It is also of importance, great importance, that nowhere in this Pact was a condition that the SU attack Poland. It was solely Stalin’s decision to invade Eastern Poland beyond the line pf demarcation.
    The existence of the Pact was made public in the hope that it would be realized in London, Paris – and Warsaw- that there was still time to solve the problem of the eastern German border which was a remnant of the “Treaty of Versailles”. In this Treaty the German delegates were not allowed in any negotiations, they had only the function to put their signature under a document that was dictated to them under the shadow of the continued hunger blockade and the promised invasion and longterm occupation of Germany in case of refusal.
    That’s the situation the “Peace Makers” created at Versailles.
    The chance to urge the Poles to consider the wisdom of occupying a purely German city -Danzig- and pusuing a continued brutal anti-minority policy, particularly against the Germans that were forced into Poland after 1918, was not taken. Likewise, the chance to extricate themselves from an ill-conceived promise of support for Poland no-matter-what was not taken in London.
    Had Hitler really wanted war, a declaration of the Senate of Danzig to intend to re-join Germany proper would have made the Poles to attack in early August. They said so in the customs crisis in early August of 1939: “Any change in the political status of Danzig means war of Poland with Germany.” Imagine that: “Hitler wanted war with all the opprobrium the democrats pour over their chosen enemy” when he could have had just three weeks earlier made the Poles attack Germany, by secretly urging the Senate of Danzig declare Danzig’s decision to re-join Germany proper and cast off that ridiculous cloak of the “Free City”.
    Remember, according to the Polish government’s statement: “Any change in the political status of Danzig means war of Poland with Germany.”
    Hitler could have simply let them attack Danzig and Germany, and even the blind politicians in London, Washington or Paris could not have blamed that easily on Hitler. Yet he chose the possibility to come to a peaceful solution.
    It is therefore wrong to say that Hitler wanted war.
    The purpose of the Pact was to discourage the warmongers in London in particular, and make them put pressure on the Poles to re-uptake the negotiations about the German-Polish border problems and the return of Danzig to Germany which they had broken off in fall of 1938.
    Finally, it was not Adolf Hitler or Germany who created the terrible conditions at the German border. London, Paris, Warsaw were the acting parties, long before Adolf Hitler had any political power..

    • Replies: @saggy
  242. @geokat62

    I would like to suggest an alternate and easier definition for anti-white or anti-anything.

    A belief which holds, or is used to imply, that someone should be punished, not for something which they have individually done, but because they are white.

    Please critique, but I arrogantly suggest that is it a perfect and succinct definition.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Corvinus
  243. @Anon

    Bernard Lazare, an eminent French Jewish intellectual in the late 19th century, said it all. No matter the differences of race, religion, history, social conditions, geography etc, in all the places that they have lived, the Jews have ended up reviled in nearly all cases. Lazare, a dedicated opponent of Judeophobia and a supporter of Dreyfus, quite sensibly observed some of the blame must surely reside with ‘Israel’ ie the Jews. Today, of course, he would be abused as a ‘self-hating Jew’.

  244. @geokat62

    Interesting is Yeshiva World News on Youtube. It shows much internecine hatred in Jerusalem between little hats, secular Jews, and the Big Hats and the Easter Island pukao topknots. They seem to sincerely hate one another, which is perhaps why they need the Palestinians to unite against. It does seem inadvisable to let such bizarre religious atavists to accumulate so much power.

  245. geokat62 says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    My contribution…

    A big lie created by Jewish Supremacist Organizations (JSOs) which encourages dumb goyim to believe that someone should first be demonized, then persecuted, and ultimately exterminated, not for something which they have done, but because they belong to a racial group called white.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  246. Corvinus says:
    @geokat62

    “Poor, Corvy. I was prepared to provide you with a more tangible definition of anti-white…”

    Highly doubtful. But you can surprise us all. Go right ahead.

    “but you prefer the mumbo jumbo you came up with when asked to define anti-Semite.”

    Exactly how and why is my nuanced definition of anti-Semite “mumbo jumbo”? You made this declaration, back it up.

    “Well, here’s you definition thrown right back at you”

    Thank you for the flattery. I provided my own definition, now it’s time to offer yours rather than copy someone else’s fine work.

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
    • Replies: @geokat62
  247. Corvinus says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Interesting scripture passage you reference here. Now, do you love the Christian God? Am I your Christian brother? Do you seek his forgiveness? Do you repent for wickedness?

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  248. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “A belief which holds, or is used to imply, that someone should be punished, not for something which they have individually done, but because they are white.”

    That is quite broad and open to interpretation. What exactly are these “beliefs” and “punishments”?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  249. geokat62 says:
    @Corvinus

    … now it’s time to offer yours rather than copy someone else’s fine work.

    Time stamp of geo’s definition provided in #254, July 10, 2021 at 2:01 pm GMT • 2.7 hours ago

    Time stamp of Corvy’s request for geo’s definition provided in #255, July 10, 2021 at 4:30 pm GMT • 13 minutes ago

    I guess that’s why crows aren’t known for being the brightest of birds, huh? lol

  250. @Corvinus

    A “belief” is just any idea that they think of positively.

    A punishment is harder to define, but most people know what it is, if they’re being honest.

    Roughly, it includes taking something away from someone, and denying something to someone that would otherwise be theirs.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  251. Corvinus: “Interesting scripture passage you reference here. Now, do you love the Christian God? Am I your Christian brother? Do you seek his forgiveness? Do you repent for wickedness? ”

    No, I’m honest, not Christian. I don’t think all men are brothers, and that it’s my duty as a Christian to love them. That’s your delusion; your Christian lie.

  252. Corvinus says:
    @geokat62

    “A big lie created by Jewish Supremacist Organizations (JSOs) which encourages dumb goyim to believe that someone should first be demonized, then persecuted, and ultimately exterminated, not for something which they have done, but because they belong to a racial group called white.”

    Rather than a definition, you are offering your opinion as to what constitutes “anti-white”. As a result, several questions arise.

    “A big lie”–How did you arrive at this conclusion?

    “created by Jewish Supremacist Organization”–What particular groups? What documentation are you able to offer that shows they sought to create and perpetuate this “big lie”?

    “dumb goyim”–Do not white people have especially high IQ’s and high time preferences? Do you think they are being misled? How?

    “someone first be demonized, then persecuted”–Examples?

    “ultimately exterminated not for something which they have done, but because they belong to a racial group called white.””–Where exactly, i.e. print/visual media, books, documents, etc., have Jewish Supremacist Organizations called for this particular action to occur? What white people have been exterminated because of their “pro-white” views (however you define that term)? By whom? When?

    Must all white people agree with your “definition”? If they oppose, are they labeled as being “anti-white”? Why?

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  253. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “A “belief” is just any idea that they think of positively. A punishment is harder to define, but most people know what it is, if they’re being honest.”

    You have yet to offer metrics, or specifics, or examples. It would appear a white person can be labeled “anti-white” for apparently anything that another white person determines for themselves what is “anti-white”. What particular beliefs and behaviors buttress the anti-white stance? That is, if a person is deemed “anti-white”, why? What is their exact thought process and conduct that has led them to earn that distinction?

    Is a person “anti-white” merely because he/she asks for clarification? How does he/she know they are “anti-white”? What about youngsters, say between the ages of 3-14? How do you suggest we teach them what is “pro-white” and “anti-white”? A handy dandy chart? Cartoon characters? Soapbox and speech in tow?

    “Roughly, it includes taking something away from someone, and denying something to someone that would otherwise be theirs.”

    That is rather vague. Could you offer background here?

  254. @Corvinus

    A belief which supports punishing people for their white skin is an anti-white belief.

    I don’t see how your post is relevant to this.

    I am not using the definition to end debate, nor to have the final word. It is just a reasonable definition.

    Examples of this which you would avoid doing if you started with this definition and didn’t want to act in a way that was prejudicial to white people would be to not ban white people from certain job roles, to not require them to get higher SATs than other groups to enter university, to not send them to special struggle sessions, to not tell them to get on their knees and apologise for something they haven’t individually done, to not prohibit them from certain kinds of government support, to not murder them while screaming racial epithets at the camera etc etc.

    It isn’t complicated. Being antiracist isn’t hard. It just means not being racist. Unlike the “antiracism”, which involves being extremely racist to white people.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  255. saggy says: • Website
    @Fox

    It is therefore wrong to say that Hitler wanted war.

    I did not say Hitler wanted a war. That was the last thing he wanted. He did want Danzig and the Corridor. And, he did attack Poland.

    The purpose of the Pact was to discourage the warmongers in London in particular, and make them put pressure on the Poles to re-uptake the negotiations about the German-Polish border problems and the return of Danzig to Germany which they had broken off in fall of 1938.

    That is exactly what I wrote – he wanted to discourage the war mongers in England, i.e. the Jews. It didn’t work. It was the beginning of the end. It was an incredibly stupid move on Hitler’s part.

  256. @Corvinus

    As usual, Jim, a mountain of words, a molehill of an idea.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  257. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK, we are slowly moving the needle.

    “white people would be to not ban white people from certain job roles. to not require them to get higher SATs than other groups to enter university”**

    Examples?

    **It would seem here you are referring to affirmative action, which I admit is decidedly troubling.

    “to not send them to special struggle sessions”

    What do you mean here?

    “to not tell them to get on their knees and apologise for something they haven’t individually done”

    Thin gruel. A white person who is Christian may believe this act will offer healing and kindness, so it is more pro-humanity than it is anti-white.

    “to not prohibit them from certain kinds of government support”

    Such as?

    “to not murder them while screaming racial epithets at the camera etc etc.”

    What event are you referring to?

    “I don’t see how your post is relevant to this.”

    It is quite relevant, as you and GeoKat have decidedly different definitions of “anti-white”. So how is a (white) person to know exactly what this concept means and whether violations will result in “punishment” by “pro-whites”? Again, it would appear a white person can be labeled “anti-white” for apparently anything that another white person determines for themselves what is “anti-white”.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  258. @Corvinus

    Before I get drawn into the swamp of litigating over examples, let’s first establish that we agree that were those things a reality, they would constitute clear anti-white racism.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  259. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “Before I get drawn into the swamp of litigating over examples, let’s first establish that we agree that were those things a reality, they would constitute clear anti-white racism.”

    Clear “anti-white” or “anti-white racism”? Are these terms synonymous or distinct? Now, I agree those actions are a reality, but whether the situations are “anti-white” or “anti-white racism”, I would say one needs to offer background and context. Let’s say there’s a white woman. Her name is Karen. She says “I will never date or marry white men because they simply don’t excite me. They need not even bother talking to me, because I’m not interested”. Is that a “anti-white” or a “personal preference”? I would say that is a radical viewpoint, a personal preference based on racial stereotypes that is “anti-white” in a specific context–dating and mating. Should she be criticized for her decision? Absolutely, as she is being extremely narrow-minded. Is she an overall “danger” to whites, as some fine commenters on this opinion webzine may argue? I would say no. Does she “hate” white men? Well, if she is friendly to them, are friends with them, confides in them, etc., then I would say no. I would argue she is not physically aroused/sexually attracted to them. Why? Ask Karen. If she is mean to white men and has no general use for them, I would call her a bitch who is a racist.

    See, you offered what you think is the definition, with general examples. Reasonable people can disagree. So if I challenge those specifics, am I thinking or acting “anti-white”? Furthermore, how do you take into account GeoKat’s “definition”? Do you agree/disagree? Would you incorporate it into your definition? Why/why not?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  260. @Corvinus

    1. “Reasonable” people do not consider “not dating someone” to be a punishment.

    2. I am using “anti-white” as a qualifier on the word “racism”, if that wasn’t already clear.

    3. Your posts tire me, you seem to rely on obtuse verbosity to avoid having to say anything or agree to anything.

    Perhaps my tired reaction is my problem, but, if you’d kindly humour me by being concise and to the point, I would appreciate it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  261. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    1. Not dating someone squarely because of their skin color or perceived attributes is a punishment–the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. The offense? He’s a white guy, and as a white woman, I don’t date them because they as a group do not “excite me”.

    2. Anti-white racism, the name of the specific kind of racial prejudice directed towards white people. OK, seems to me to be confusing, just like anti-black racism, anti-Asian racism, etc.

    3. I have been concise and to the point. Perhaps the questions I am posing might lead you to a direction you want to avoid. Bottom line for me is that it seems a white person can be called “anti-white” in an arbitrary manner by another white person. That is why a precise definition with examples is needed here. Otherwise, how are we whites supposed to know better?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  262. @Corvinus

    1. Not dating someone squarely because of their skin color or perceived attributes is a punishment

    Pause and think.

    Would you really consider someone who didn’t want to date you, having the self-knowledge to not inflict themselves upon you, a “punishment?”

    2. Anti-white racism, the name of the specific kind of racial prejudice directed towards white people. OK, seems to me to be confusing, just like anti-black racism, anti-Asian racism, etc.

    You find it confusing that a racist might discriminate by race?

    Bottom line for me is that it seems a white person can be called “anti-white” in an arbitrary manner by another white person.

    All words can be used in an abritary manner, but “anti-white racism” is a good, clear label for an actual phenomenon.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  263. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “Would you really consider someone who didn’t want to date you, having the self-knowledge to not inflict themselves upon you, a “punishment?””

    It is a punishment to white men by the white woman who is entirely discounting them because of their race. Of course, I would not date her, rather I would call her thought process as racially discriminatory and move on.

    “You find it confusing that a racist might discriminate by race?”

    No. I cannot remember if I even had heard that term before.

    ” but “anti-white racism” is a good, clear label for an actual phenomenon.”

    Fine, but one has to be exact as to what and what does fit the description or meet the criteria. It’s not the label itself, but how a person arrives to the conclusion that the label is warranted. For example, I support the mixing of the races. That is, a white man and an Asian woman, or a white woman and a black man, are free to marry and have offspring. Would you agree or disagree that my belief is “anti-white” or “anti-white racism” or whatever one decides to call it? Why?

    GeoKat has a decidedly different definition as to what is “anti-white”. Refer to Comment 254. Is he on the right track? Is he off base? How does his definition fit in with your definition?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  264. @Corvinus

    I am being exact. Someone else may argue for an expanded definition of what is anti-white racism. That is their prerogative. Most of those types of arguments are some form of “shouting fire in a theatre is bad” argument; which I get, but can be discussed individually.

    You’re also flat wrong with your belief that refusing to date someone is punishing them. It does not matter the reason, but the fact that you don’t like someone, means that it would actually be the going on the date with them that would be their punishment. This is why I said “pause and think”. It is obvious once you see it.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  265. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “I am being exact. Someone else may argue for an expanded definition of what is anti-white racism. That is their prerogative.”

    Which only shows that “anti-white” or “anti-white racism” is subjective. How is a (white) person to know exactly what this concept means and whether violations will result in “punishment” by “pro-whites”? Seems to me that a white person can be labeled “anti-white” for apparently anything that another white person determines for themselves what is “anti-white”.

    “You’re also flat wrong with your belief that refusing to date someone is punishing them”.

    We will agree to disagree.

    “Most of those types of arguments are some form of “shouting fire in a theatre is bad” argument; which I get, but can be discussed individually.”

    OK. So, I support the mixing of the races. That is, a white man and an Asian woman, or a white woman and a black man, are free to marry and have offspring. Would you agree or disagree that my belief is “anti-white” or “anti-white racism” or whatever one decides to call it? Why?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  266. @Corvinus

    Which only shows that “anti-white” or “anti-white racism” is subjective. How is a (white) person to know exactly what this concept means and whether violations will result in “punishment” by “pro-whites”? Seems to me that a white person can be labeled “anti-white” for apparently anything that another white person determines for themselves what is “anti-white”.

    I’ve given a sensible label to a discrete concept. If you need to argue with someone else’s label, please go take it up with them.

    OK. So, I support the mixing of the races. That is, a white man and an Asian woman, or a white woman and a black man, are free to marry and have offspring. Would you agree or disagree that my belief is “anti-white” or “anti-white racism” or whatever one decides to call it? Why?

    If you ban someone from agreeing to a marriage proposal, merely because of the colour of their skin, which is white, then you are punishing them for having white skin.

    Yes, so-called pro-white activists are often more than happy to oppress white people, as white people, in order to “progress” to their utopia. This is why normie conservatives think they are stupid, and nasty. “What do you mean I have to divorce Chun Li, but she is sweet to me and I am happy!”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  267. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “I’ve given a sensible label to a discrete concept. If you need to argue with someone else’s label, please go take it up with them.”

    You are tacitly admitting that defining this concept, as well as offering specific examples that meet its criteria, is a matter of subjectivity.

    “Yes, so-called pro-white activists are often more than happy to oppress white people, as white people, in order to “progress” to their utopia.”

    That utopia is the white race not being sullied by inferior races. These “pro-white activists” have a noble goal in mind, which is to preserve the purity of whiteness. So these “oppressors”, i.e. pro-whites who oppose race mixing, would point to your definition and argue the white race itself is being “punished”–the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense–when its own members marry and sire offspring outside of their race. The result? Fewer white babies being born, thus increasingly the likelihood the white race will be genocided out of existence.

    As you stated, a punishment is much harder to define, but most people know what it is, if they’re being honest, right? So, it looks like you and I, from the vantage point of pro-white activists who oppose race mixing, are “anti-white”. Hung by your own definition!

  268. geokat62 says:

    Q. What’s the definition of masochism?

    A. Entering into a long exchange with Corvy.

    lol!

    • LOL: Triteleia Laxa
  269. You are tacitly admitting that defining this concept, as well as offering specific examples that meet its criteria, is a matter of subjectivity

    The logic I am using is like a recursive conversation, 3 layers down. You are obviously incapable of understanding. Sadly, this is not something which everyone can learn.

    Using a definition makes it a fact, it has been used and said, this is the most basic understanding. Little children get it.

    The label is nevertheless inherently subjective, a point which teenagers get.

    Yet labels also describe reality below that. It isn’t perfect. Seeing reality is like looking into a vague and shadowy world, but it exists. This is wisdom.

    You’re stuck in the middle, thinking you are very smart. This is where the sophists get stuck.

    That utopia is the white race not being sullied by inferior races. These “pro-white activists” have a noble goal in mind, which is to preserve the purity of whiteness. So these “oppressors”, i.e. pro-whites who oppose race mixing, would point to your definition and argue the white race itself is being “punished”

    They put their concept of the “white race” above the actual choices and interests of real, existing “white people.” Like all idolaters, they sin by doing exactly the thing they would most hate to do. They confuse their definition for the thing that is getting defined.

    The Marxists ended up doing this with the working class; which is why the working class abandoned them; or rather, the Marxists’ idolatry caused them to abandon the working class and yet somehow feel themselves abandoned.

    The working class moved onto other ideologies, promoted by people who tried harder to reach them where they were, and Communism was defeated; which is exactly what has happened with “white nationalists.” They abandoned everything that real, existing white people wanted and liked in favour of their concept of the “white race”, and yet have a deep wound from thinking that white people have abandoned them.

    This is a wound which no amount of blaming some mysterious “other” can heal; hence their constant and excessive agitation.

    Love is what you have for people as they exist. When “white nationalists” say they live the “white race” they all too often mean they hate the white race, as constituted by real white people, and just love their own expectations and attempts to control others.

    I am painting with a broad brush, but it is mostly between the lines.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  270. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “The logic I am using is like a recursive conversation, 3 layers down. You are obviously incapable of understanding. Sadly, this is not something which everyone can learn.”

    To the contrary, I comprehend quite well.

    “Using a definition makes it a fact”

    Absolutely, when we have a basic agreement of a word’s definition, like “strong” or “decisive”. The problem here is the definition of “anti-white” has yet to be clearly established among people. Certainly, you have your definition. geokat62 has his own definition. Other individuals and groups have their own definition. That is why it is challenging to craft a definition of “anti-white” that people can generally agree upon and employ it in a logical, consistent fashion.

    “The label is nevertheless inherently subjective, a point which teenagers get”.

    Which is why you and me are “anti-white” employing your definition because we support the mixing of the races.

    “Yet labels also describe reality below that.”

    A reality for one person, a different reality for another person. So when geokat applies his definition and labels your behavior as “anti-white”, and you apply your definition and label my behavior as “anti-white”, what “reality” is “fact” or “true”?

    “They put their concept of the “white race” above the actual choices and interests of real, existing “white people”.

    Be careful here, as you are employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy. But, I am curious here, what do you think are the “actual choices and interests” of “real, existing” white people?

    “Like all idolaters, they sin by doing exactly the thing they would most hate to do. They confuse their definition for the thing that is getting defined.”

    I agree with you, but these “pro-white activists” are using their definition, which is a fact to them, applying it to the thoughts and behaviors of others, and then determining whether or not those thoughts and behaviors meet the criteria. Hence, as I have been saying all along, and you tacitly acknowledge, it would appear a white person can be labeled “anti-white” for apparently anything that another white person determines for themselves what is “anti-white”.

  271. Be careful here, as you are employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy. But, I am curious here, what do you think are the “actual choices and interests” of “real, existing” white people?

    I am talking about how the majority of white people act in the real world. It is obviously not in line with a set of beliefs that would require them to jail other white people for “race-mixing.”

    “Yet labels also describe reality below that.”

    This is the point that is beyond you right now. I cannot carry you there either, so our exhausting conversation is over.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  272. Corvinus says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    “This is the point that is beyond you right now.”

    Is “anti-white” a fact and a reality? Assuredly. But what does it exactly mean? Well, it’s all over the board. The reality is that you can have a definition of a term that is a “fact” and a “reality”, so long as there a fundamental understanding of its criteria and examples. The problem with defining and justifying “anti-white”, as I clearly and repeatedly pointed out in our discussion, is its overall subjective nature. Context matters. Again, using your own definition, you and I are “anti-white” because we support race mixing. We both disagree, of course, with being affixed with that label, but other people who support this prohibition would argue to the contrary. That is their “fact” and “reality”.

    “I cannot carry you there either, so our exhausting conversation is over.”

    I’m getting there on my own quite fine, thank you very much. At least you were willing to offer perspective, which I provide my thanks.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  273. @Corvinus

    “Just because the Party, and Lenin, announced a battle against Great Russian Chauvinism doesn’t mean Anti-Great Russian Chauvinism is something to be worried about. I mean, Lenin might have his definition of being Anti-Great Russian, but Yaroslav here believes any Russian who mixes with a non-Russian is Anti-Great Russian…so, the term is meaningless and we Great Russians have nothing to worry about. Besides, we took this land from the Turks and Tatars. People evolve, it doesn’t matter.”

    Anyhow, that was me having fun extrapolating this conversation into a different era and place, but I hope it expresses the flaw in your reasoning. Unless, of course, you’d be that guy in the conversation and proud of it, in which case…well, maybe you’ll do well. I wouldn’t be proud of bending with the wind so joyously, or defending it. Survival is one thing. Taking pleasure in such behavior? Quite another. Sad, almost. Like a Native waving the flag of the country that took him over. “This is us, now!”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  274. Corvinus says:
    @Boomthorkell

    “Anyhow, that was me having fun extrapolating this conversation into a different era and place, but I hope it expresses the flaw in your reasoning.”

    Try speaking directly without the rhetorical ploy that you clearly didn’t pull off.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  275. @Corvinus

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, well, that’s on you. I made it as clear as you made yours. Check out Great Russian Chauvinism sometime, or don’t.

  276. Corvinus says:

    “I made it as clear as you made yours.”

    Ok, so you agree with me that anti-white is a subjective term. Thanks.

  277. I’d like to see people return to, and stick to, the topic at hand: “hate speech”, and how to respond. It’s frustrating to allow discussions to get diverted into tangential or irrelevant topics. Almost like the trolls want it that way … 🙂

  278. HdC says:
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Incredibly valued by whom?

    The man in the street? The small business owner? The tax payer? Who?

    Or was it the the rent-collecting class, who tended to employ Jewish rent collectors because these had no Christian empathy and simply wanted their pound of flesh?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Thomas Dalton Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings