Michael Gerson is worried about White Nationalism invading “respected institutional spaces on the Internet” and calls for censorship to squelch all of this “hate” before it snowballs into something more sinister. Please note the delicious irony: the same man who would have us force “democracy” on the Islamic world at gunpoint cowers in fear of a free exchange of views at his own newspaper. When Gerson and his fellow neocons sing the praises of “democracy,” what they really have in mind is a closed society in which they are allowed to lord over their fellow citizens as a privileged intellectual elite.
In any case, Gerson calls attention to a trend that I have long noticed: the comment sections of online newspapers and magazines are often full of racialist comments. White Nationalism either has a huge internet following or the typical White American has far stronger racial views than surveys and polls give him credit. For millions of Whites, anti-racism is a dogma which they give lip service to in public, but privately don’t believe in. The anonymity of the internet doesn’t “amplify hate”; it reflects our true racial sentiments.
Wait a minute.
The Left overwhelmingly controls the political process. Radical Marxists occupy just about every seat of power in the West. They dominate the universities and schools. They have a stranglehold on corporations. Radical Marxist Jews and their followers control the movie industry, the music business, network television, and publishing. They send imported non-White armies into White communities to harass and ethnically cleanse White Americans. For God’s sake, a radically anti-White negro and his racist African wife occupy the White House!
And yet, they now tell us there is a “nazi threat’ from cyberspace! Their solution? To cleanse racially-conscious Whites from the internet.
For Gerson and other Jews, “democracy” is a code word for oppression and authoritarian rule. What they really want, as Prozium says, is a “closed society,” or totalitarian rule.
Eventually, if the debate that occurs in cyber-space is stifled, the White resistance will not go away but will spill over into the real world, where Gerson, his fellow Jews, and their legions of third world allies will be faced with quite a different situation.
They should tread carefully, for their own sake.
The Israelis, whom Gerson certainly backs to the hilt, have just outlawed anyone saying Israel isn’t a Jewish state.
( — The Admiral)
My guess is this is correct.
I’ve read his piece. Michael Gerson is a Jew who thinks that if White gentiles are allowed to speak freely and without inhibitions or taboos erected by his people, this might translate into 6 million dead Jews. I think people might be finally getting tired of this type of emotional blackmail. He’s censorship project is the equivalent of book burnings; so in the sense he’s philosophically on the side of the Nazis. What he fails to say is that anyone can jump in and rebut the previous post during a debate in cyberspace, there’s no state that forces one to embrace the party-line at Washington Post (to his obvious chagrin) and send the transgressors to the Gulag. We’re to assume that this type of free-wheeling back and forth makes him terrible uncomfortable.
You are right, Admiral. This call for silencing the voices of resistance and dissent is growing louder. In the bid from absolute control over public discourse they are demanding the end of “absolute freedom.” No more questioning their wisdom. They’re losing control of the marketplace of ideas, and they can’t stand it. They will force Americans into violence and use that violence to justify censorship and repression. They are becoming desperate.
Jews, as Asiatics, don’t understand the concept of freedom of speech. It’s a racial characteristic of Euros. Jews lack the gene for it every bit as much as Chinamen, Arabs, and other Asiatic races. Sure, Jews squawk about freedom of speech endlessly when they’re relatively powerless. Once they get the power to crush they waste no time crushing. Then it’s “Freedom of speech? What’s that? That’s a goy concept. We’re Jews.”
White racial consciousness has been stirred up to the point where stuffing a lid on internet free speech is not going to stop it. More people come around to our point of view every day. Gerson and his fellow Communists don’t know the meaning of timely restraint nor do they understand that the censorship option will only further radicalize our people and incense those who already despise them.
Evidently, the people of the cooked book are also the people of the double standard, writ very large!
It seems likely that Gerson’s tribe will form an anti – Western alliance with the Islamic world in order to push the execrable UN towards some sort of international agreement, or at least consensus, on internet censorship. This will assist both groups of Middle Eastern deity worshippers to combat ‘anti – Semitism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ respectively.
It seems likely that Gerson’s tribe will form an anti – Western alliance with the Islamic world in order to push the execrable UN towards some sort of international agreement, or at least consensus, on internet censorship.
If they succeed they’ll find themselves censoring each other more than they’ll be censoring whites!
Gerson’s like a character straight out of The Culture of Critique.
Do any of you guys know some mulatto Republican cocksucker named Rob Taylor Red Alerts? This nigger has some issues, man.
How do you know he’s a mullato? I had some run-in with this anti-racist neocon.
Whites in America have been raised from Birth in the belief of Freedom of Speech. To radically take away this right will lead a very large reaction and the Jewish Media had better take that into account.
Indeed I myself have become radicalized by seeing the treatment meted out to Ernst Zundel, David Irving, and Heretical 2.
P.S. I have been debating some Libertarian type about this here: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54842
That’s what he is, and that’s what he says he is. He’s on this insane jihad right now, accusing me of being a pedophile. He’s written a number of posts on this. I don’t know why he says this, but he smears all of his enemies. He’s accused me of being some guy named Robert Lindsay, who is a meth cook, a sex offender and just fought it out with cops raiding his place. But that guy’s not me (look at his pic) and he’s in prison anyway.
He’s a real asshole man. One of the biggest assholes on the whole Internet, and that’s saying a lot. Lately he’s in with the Perverted Justice nutcases who run that horrible To Catch a Predator show where they entrap poor innocent guys into trying to meet teenage girls for sex. Teenage girls that don’t even exist. Teenage girls that are really adults pretending to be teenyboppers.
He’s a real whackjob. Taylor loves Jews and has a hardon for Israel that won’t go down. He’s a Republican and the Republicans are the best friends of the Blacks, Mexicans, etc. It’s liberals, Democrats and especially Communists who are evil White Supremacist KKK neo-Nazis who hate Blacks, Jews and Hispanics. Communists are really Nazis in disguise. Stalin and Mao love Hitler. On and on.
And all terrrorism is Commie. Even Islamist terrorists are Commies. Because now all Commies are Islamists and all Islamists are Commies. So Al Qaeda are really like Arab Shining Path.
It goes on and on like this. The guy’s seriously deranged, except that when you stop and think about it, he may as well be on Fox News.
I have respect for respectable rightwingers. Hell, even Nazis have real coherent values. But these days, US conservatives are mostly just insane people. Like Mr. Taylor.
Respected institutional spaces on the Internet? Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCvkatCGNFY
Is this who we want to save, people?
“Is this who we want to save, people?” ( — Nordmacht)
Yes. We want to keep the whole white gene pool as it now exists. That includes redneck assholes like this one.
Fade, it can be explained easily.
If you went by the internet, ron paul would have won the election. The internet is not a representative sample of ideology.
If you went by polls conducted on Cell phones, John Kerry would have beat George Bush.
There are more wns on the internet. As much anger as I provoke on the internet, I’m well liked in real life. People who post on the internet a lot often don’t realize how far they are out of the mainstream. This applies not to white nationalists only but to everyone.
Michael Gerson is an evangelical protestant Christian. I don’t know if he has any kind of Jewish ethnic background.
Gerson is of Jewish descent.
Gerson is a characteristically Jewish name.
Iceman: “If you went by the internet, ron paul would have won the election. The internet is not a representative sample of ideology.”
True enough, but I would distinguish the WN situation from that of Paul. Ron Paul style libertarianism is, at the end of the day, a fairly esoteric philosophy. Most people have never been hardcore libertarians, and most will never be hardcore libertarians. There is not a single country on the planet that is, or has ever been, hardcore libertarian. What you have there is a fairly small (but very dedicated) minority of people who can make a lot of noise, but who can’t ever expect any sort of truly broad support. At the end of the day, if history is any guide, hardcore libertarianism has a pretty low potential ceiling.
WN, however, is in a different situation. Not all that long ago, racialist attitudes were the norm. Racialism, historically understood, is clearly capable of commanding broad support amongst whites (as unlikely as that may seem today). Large numbers of people out there privately harbor some or all of our views. Ethnic conflict, nationalism, and secession movements have existed all across the world, and obviously not just amongst whites either. Ethnonationalism is the real deal, with a long history of commanding broad support amongst populations, white or non-white. Even today, the planet is full of non-white nations that actively seek to maintain their people and culture. This basic and most fundamental right is only denied to white nations. In a real sense, ethnonationalism is the norm. This stands in stark contrast to an esoteric philosophy that has NEVER commanded broad support in a single country throughout all of history.
White nationalism is the real deal. Hardcore libertarians, while they make many good points, are at the end of the day prisoners to a set of abstractions that the general public has never bought and almost certainly never will.
This is why the system freaks out when we start making noise. They know full well that, unlike the libertarians, our views could spread through a very broad swath of whites. Therefore, we must be suppressed and demonized at every opportunity. In contrast, the libertarians can be left to yelp and bark like little terriers (hat tip Linder). They are feisty, can make a lot of noise, but are no real threat to the system.
Michael Gerson is an evangelical protestant Christian. I don’t know if he has any kind of Jewish ethnic background.
Gerson is a Jewish name.
http://majorityrights.com/uploads/jewish-last-names.txt
He certainly looks Jewish.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/9.html
Look at the issues he writes about per his Wikipedia bio: When he’s not agitating for war in the Middle East, he’s calling whites “bigots” and “nativists”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gerson
I leave you with the lead-in from the piece Prozium linked:
The transformation of Germany in the 1920s and ’30s from the nation of Goethe to the nation of Goebbels is a specter that haunts, or should haunt, every nation.
Iceman: “If you went by the internet, ron paul would have won the election. The internet is not a representative sample of ideology.”
Who would you say in overrepresented on the net? The liberals? The white nationalists? or just the Ron Paul libertarians? I see it the other way around: I think white nationalists are underrepresented in the mass media and the political system.
As Trainspotter says, not all that long ago, racialist attitudes were the norm. It is unlikely that white people have suddenly become different from the previous generations. Deep down, most ot them oppose replacement immigration and agree with white nationalists, but not all of them realize that. They cannot form a strong, confident opinion on the question because it is not allowed for open, common sense debate, and they are intimidated by the propaganda. The general population cannot be expected to hold as strong opinions as internet posters who spend a lot of time thinking of politics. That is why it may seem there is a gap between popular opinion and internet white nationalists.
I think the only way the result of elections can be meaningful is if there has been, beforehand, a proper national debate on the questions that matter most. Otherwise, it is not really possible to infer “what people think” from the results of a public election. The way in which the debate is organized is essential to democracy. But what happens today in elections is that the system asks their opinion from people who have been deliberately prevented from forming strong opinions, and who are narrowly supervised by the anti-white system. The result of such elections is worthless and cannot be used to infer that the internet is not a representative sample of ideology.
Voters also need to be given a choice in elections between pro-replacement and anti-replacement politicians. Unfortunately, almost no room is left in official political life for politicians who actively oppose race replacement. Voters are asked to choose between candidates like Obama and McCain. This is no choice at all.
In fact, the main stream media and the official political process are not representative of popular opinion. In a democratic system, issues like race replacement should be raised at the grassroots level and go up to the top. But what we now have in the West is a top down system, where the top largely decides how the bottom will vote thanks to the control of the media and the political machine.
The internet will make the grassroots rebellion more likely to succeed. I agree with Prozium that “the anonymity of the internet (…) reflects our true racial sentiments.” In Andersen’s tale, the Emperor’s New Clothes, a little boy is the only person with enough good sense to say that the Emperor has nothing on at all. I think the internet can play the same role (and do much more).
The transformation of Germany in the 1920s and ’30s from the nation of Goethe to the nation of Goebbels is a specter that haunts, or should haunt, every nation.
It should really only haunt the nations that decide to undergo the transformation. It is a dangerous path to tread.
Who would you say in overrepresented on the net? The liberals? The white nationalists? or just the Ron Paul libertarians? I see it the other way around: I think white nationalists are underrepresented in the mass media and the political system.
Liberals are much underrepresented, and WN’s and libertarians are much overrepresented, in particular the Libertariantards.
WN’s though are very much underrepresented in the mass media (not including the Net) and of course in the political system.
I agree with Prozium. As much as I dislike White ethnic nationalism, or any ethnic nationalism for that matter, it’s clear that ethnic nationalism has legs. That’s sort of why we Commies hate it so much. We’ve long been aware of the appeal of the fascist project to the average man, and this is what makes fascism so dangerous. We have never believed that it’s “nothing to worry your poor little heads about.” Fascism and ethnic nationalism have a powerful in humans for genetic reasons since they plug into some of our most basic impulses as humans.
Libertardtarianism, though, is ridiculous. It’s never been attempted anywhere, really, and the only places where it’s been de facto in place, such as the Turd World and pre-civilized America, ended up or end up pretty well wrecked. Fade makes an excellent case for that.
Libertardtarianism is behind the recent blowup of not just the US but the world economy. Qui bono? Almost no one. White people? Get real? Upper middle class or middle class Whites? Not really. Basically what happened is that the banks and FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector robbed the national economy blind. They had to be bailed out to $10 billion, which came out of our savings from our taxes, out of Social Security and Medicare for older Whites. SS and Medicare are pretty well nuked now, but that was the project all along.
The economy is screwed. Income has been flat since 2001 and wages have been flat since 1980. My friends in Europe are moaning. The economy there is ruined by the US bankster-crooks. It’s gone for all the rest of the year and all next year. My friends were White Europeans with good incomes living very well. Their incomes and lifes have been screwed hard, and so have the lives and incomes of millions of other European Whites.
So you’re an upper middle class White in the US? You made out? Dubious. You probably lost your corporate job, you may have lost your house, your car, God knows what else. How many American Whites have been screwed like this by this Banker Ripoff?
My Mom bought her house 4 years ago for $130K. It’s now worth $48K. She’s a normal, elderly White woman, who’s worked her whole life. Why did she need to get fucked like this for some lying Banksters?
This blowup has screwed the US economy. A lot of company’s are hurting bad or out of business altogether. How did this Bankster Ripoff Scam benefit US business, or US capitalism? It didn’t. All it did was blow a hole in the safe and make off with a ton of loot and leave us holding the bag.
The Republicans won’t reform the FIRE criminals, and neither will the “socialist” Obama. Why not? He’s not a socialist! Both parties, even the “liberal” Democrats, are 100% controlled by Big Corporate Money and in particular Big FIRE Industry Money. They won’t regulate this runaway train if their lives depended on it.
Can anyone even give me a pro-capitalist argument about why this Greatest Bankster Robbery even needed to happen in the first place? I don’t get it. It was bad for business, bad for capitalism, bad for Whites.
Yet Libertariantards not only justify but champion such Free Market Fundamentalist Mumbo-Jumbo.
“Can anyone even give me a pro-capitalist argument about why this Greatest Bankster Robbery even needed to happen in the first place? I don’t get it. It was bad for business, bad for capitalism, bad for Whites.
Yet Libertariantards not only justify but champion such Free Market Fundamentalist Mumbo-Jumbo.”
They do? The libertarian argument I am familiar with says that monopolies are bad.
The Banksters have a monopoly — actually a cabal. The banks get to create money out of thin air under the system of fractional reserve banking. For every $1 that actually gets earned through real enterprise and deposited, the banking system-cabal gets to create $9 to loan out — and collect the interest on.
Their scam is so awesome, they don’t even have to go to bear the expense of PRINTING the money anymore — it’s just keystrokes on a computer screen.
Man, if I could get away with counterfeiting, I’d be rich, rich, rich too.
The argument I’m familiar with from libertarian-leaning sorts says that the Banksters form a monopoly who are given their power by the coercion of the gov’t and therefore are not “free markets” at all. What we need to return to is sound money using something that the gov’t-banking colluders cannot just create at will. In all times throughout history, that something is precious metals.
I’ve always thought Gerson was a Christian.
Gentilhommes,
“The argument I’m familiar with from libertarian-leaning sorts says that the Banksters form a monopoly who are given their power by the coercion of the gov’t and therefore are not “free markets” at all.” (barb)
A false argument.
Banksters are permitted, by the very principles of laissez-faire/”free enterprise”/private property to privately form a monoply/oligopoly out of their freedom thus to engage in commercial collusion with their own “private” property – the success of which collusion requires no “power” conferred by the government other than protection for said right to engage in private collusion.
The attempt has been made by Friedmanites, et al., to pretend that monopolies are exclusively the product of government charter, otherwise falling into disarray due to (free) market forces. This is neither the logic nor the history of the event. It is the case, admittedly, that political authority has always eventually intervened to ameliorate “exploitation” due to monopolization and Trust formation, thus failing to allow supposed free market forces to correct the situation “in the long run”. But why it is in the rightly understood interest of the public to perpetually tolerate “long runs” has not been rationalized, even given acceptance of that formulation.
NN
“Basically what happened is that the banks and FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sector robbed the national economy blind. They had to be bailed out to $10 billion, which came out of our savings from our taxes, out of Social Security and Medicare for older Whites.”
Not quite. It’s government that screwed us. The banks and financial services sector were given the keys to the safe–by government itself. For example:
*Artifially low interest rates through monetary policy
*Mortgage interest tax deduction
*Income tax exemption of real estate capital gains
*Legislation requiring home loans to underqualified non-white population groups
*etc.
I’m no libertarian (can’t stand them in fact), but the evidence strongly indicates that the present crisis is a consequence of government policy.
“Banksters are permitted, by the very principles of laissez-faire/”free enterprise”/private property to privately form a monoply/oligopoly out of their freedom thus to engage in commercial collusion with their own “private” property – the success of which collusion requires no “power” conferred by the government other than protection for said right to engage in private collusion.”
Gov’t coercion comes in here: “Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for all debts, public and private.”
The Banksters have the right to create FRNs out of thin air and loan them out and collect the interest, thereby gaining for themselves purchasing power without risking (much — 10% of a given loan on average) money of their own. Because federal law REQUIRES debt-holders to accept FRNs, the free market is UNABLE to operate correctly to reject these out-of-thin-air notes as the worthless scraps of paper they are.
Gentilhommes,
*Gov’t coercion comes in here: “Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for all debts, public and private.”* (barb)
I was speaking of the universal case and should have referred to, in general terms, “entrepreneurs” rather than “Banksters” (to whom the same argument nevertheless applies). This is to say that a banking (or any other) monopoly may arise merely under laissez-faire premises with intolerable effect for the public weal. Thus the fact that the present arrangement of banking monopoly is under government charter does not preclude the emergence of a durable and likewise objectionable wholely private entity enjoying no special dispensation from government.
As said, the libertarian argument is false.
NN
“…does not preclude the emergence of a durable and likewise objectionable wholely private entity enjoying no special dispensation from government.” (i.e., were the chartered bank no longer extant.)