May 10, 2013

Charles Murray: "Integrity. Loyalty. Balls."

The Daily Caller reprints a couple of Charles Murray tweets:
Charles Murray @charlesmurray
Jason Richwine, guilty of crimethink, "resigns." The bashing from the right has been as mindless as from the left. 
Charles Murray @charlesmurray
Thank God I was working for Chris DeMuth and AEI, not Jim DeMint and Heritage, when The Bell Curve was published. Integrity. Loyalty. Balls.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Charles Murray really has no business talking about balls. He hasn't hit hard on anything. The Bell Curve was 20 years ago and everything was buried under academic jargon.

Anonymous said...

"Integrity. Loyalty. Balls."

Now THAT'S a motto we should rally around.

Anonymous said...

"Integrity. Loyalty. Balls."

A Neocon outfit like the AEI really has no business talking about loyalty.

Dennis Dale said...

People need to step up. I'm talking to you, Mr. Respectable-pundit-cruising-Sailer's-for-ideas/analysis.

It shouldn't take balls to speak the plain truth. With each public figure who stands up it becomes easier for the next to make the perfectly reasonable defense:
Richwine's assertion of disparity in IQ is nothing even the most liberal scholar does not readily acknowledge, only differing on the reasons for the disparity or, on the fringe, in the validity of "IQ".
So why do the Conspicuously Outraged get to make the assumption Richwine's results prove a genetic basis for differences in IQ (Richwine doesn't dare assert this-correct me if I'm wrong), ergo Richwine must go? I mean, wait a minute--who's assertion is this?

It's out in the open then: Richwine is punished simply for "going there" (but really for getting where he does) and everyone's cool with it! Serious people! Respectable, good people! And all the cool people!

It's crazy, but if you think about it, Richwine is being made to pay for their assertion--Richwine's results prove a genetic cause.

"Orwellian" used to be hyperbole; now it it's insufficient--it doesn't even begin to describe the corruption of language and power.
I would kill for the NYT's next tete a tete to be a rematch of Brooks/Collins on the subject. I could use a little levity.

Anonymous said...

Dennis Dale: People need to step up. I'm talking to you, Mr. Respectable-pundit-cruising-Sailer's-for-ideas/analysis.

Hear, Hear! I defend him in conversation with my colleagues but I don't have a national platform or financial security. Grow a pair, or if you already have one, stop duct taping to your leg just to gain access to the eunuch's quarters.

-The Judean People's Front

Anonymous said...

It's easy to have balls when you're financing non-PC research while taking PC political positions. AEI is pro-amnesty, whereas Heritage is not. The PC lay of the land dictates that Heritage's anti-amnesty position not be tainted by anything that smells of racism, which in today's parlance means merely asserting that racial differences exist rather than the old Nazi stance that lesser-endowed races should be physically eliminated via mass killings.

Maxwell Power said...

Muffling the punch somewhat, I thought Murray was an open-borders proponent

Anonymous said...

one of you should have made out like bandits in the financial crisis. look at unz for example.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


It's easy to have balls when you're financing non-PC research while taking PC political positions. AEI is pro-amnesty, whereas Heritage is not. The PC lay of the land dictates that Heritage's anti-amnesty position not be tainted by anything that smells of racism, which in today's parlance means merely asserting that racial differences exist rather than the old Nazi stance that lesser-endowed races should be physically eliminated via mass killings.

5/10/13, 11:32 PM"


Good catch. Indeed AEI supporting Murray will be looked on Nixon goes to China

On that note, rather than start all these hundreds of conservative websites and foundations, wouldnt these billions of dollars be better served simply by plantin moles in liberal organizations,downright bribing liberal journalists and policy makers or better yet find some strong common ground as with the SPLC guy and black farm workers with regard to illegal immigration.

Seriously the leftist coalition is a complete joke filled with mutually hostile groups and mutually exclusive interests.

Black men with their culture of racist misoygny , white women, Hispanics(who are increasingly at logger heads with blacks), gays(who are hated by blacks and Hispanics and loved only by white women), white union workers who dont care for either blacks,Hipanic and are despised by status conscious white women(hi Whiskey).All held together with idiot liberal Jews and WASPs ,neither of whom really likes the other.

Being from where I am ,I have the instincts of devious Indian politicians who are no strangers to creating and destroying shaky and haphazard alliances. If in power, I wouldve destroyed the Democratic party in a couple of years by staging riots between blacks,hispanics ,gays , create anti Semitic incidents and attribute them to... well take your pick .If the media ignores such stories, as they often do, no problem.

Doctor tapes of anchors making racist comments against blacks/Hispanics and arrange for an angry mob to head to the news station,lynch or rape the anchors and just burn it down the premises.
Try and bury THAT story!

Illegal? yes,immoral? Certainly. Evil? Perhaps? A NECESSARY evil? Bingo
Future generations will thank me

I see it as aiding Shiva's dance of destruction- He destroys all that is unnatural and pretentious in order to clean the slate so to speak

Anonymous said...

"Charles Murray really has no business talking about balls. He hasn't hit hard on anything. The Bell Curve was 20 years ago and everything was buried under academic jargon."

And what have you done requiring equal or greater balls?

Svigor said...

"Charles Murray really has no business talking about balls. He hasn't hit hard on anything. The Bell Curve was 20 years ago and everything was buried under academic jargon."

And what have you done requiring equal or greater balls?


Being a eunuch doesn't prevent a man from judging whether another man's intact or not.

Anonymous said...

Charles Murray. Deluded.

Crown Heights. Nation of Islam. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism.

Warning shot.

Anonymous said...

Yea I am sure you would have succeeded where Richard Nixon failed. Do you really think you could foment racial riots across the country and not have anyone find out? The Democrats get away with stuff because the media covers for them not because they are especially cagey.

There is a giant aporia where IQ is everything, but nonetheless our high IQ are so stupid that Dr. Van Nostrand, a man not even from this country, could come in an totally hoodwink said elite. Tell me has the Indian elite even once driven back an invader. I mean Alexander the Great marched into India. When even remote cultures can march right in and take over maybe your culture isn't the best to brag about its statecraft abilities.

But really that should be the iSteve poster slogan, indeed the slogan of all marginal male groups, just put us in charge already (left unsaid: then maybe we can start banging hot chicks).

rob said...

Loyalty as such is not a feature. Loyalty means that every time some bunch marches through our institutions, we follow like lemmings.

Loyalty means they don't even have to infiltrate and climb. David Brooks just has to claim to be a conservative, and the NYT makes him the voice of conservatism.

Loyalty means that when 'conservatives' at the WaPo say that the government 'cutting' taxes, and borrowing the difference from, in a total coincidence, the same people whose taxes were cut is a great plan to starve the beast, conservatives go along. No one even mentioned the self-interest of running the government at a defecit so that they could get a risk-free return lending money to the government.

Some people on the "far-right" used to say that they loved their country, but hated their government. Soon the country won't be theirs. Why should they be loyal?

Dennis Dale said...

Charles Murray really has no business talking about balls. He hasn't hit hard on anything. The Bell Curve was 20 years ago and everything was buried under academic jargon

"buried under academic jargon"?
Yeah, see, if only he'd produced a political pamphlet unencumbered by empiricism and analysis, then we wouldn't be in this mess today!

I mean, what did he accomplish, putting out this book that's just sat there, doing nothing, all this time routinely denounced but never refuted, like a monument to truth in a land of lies, the worst kind of monument one that can't be toppled or carted away?
(I find the pre-humans in 2001 screeching and cowering before the monolith to be a useful mental image of the reaction--even young Barack Obama bared his teeth at it)

Yeah, jargon, man!

Whiskey said...

The answer is independence. Mark Steyn does not answer to anyone but Steyn. Ditto Rush Limbaugh. Which means independent, sold-through-the-internet, podcasts, ebooks, and the like appealing to ordinary folks fed up with lies and wanting truth.

Heritage and AEI ARE the problem. The solution is in independence.

As for getting the Dem/Diversity groups to hate each other, discipline is enforced by their HATE HATE HATE of ordinary White guys. And their desire to loot the same.

Anonymous said...

Hey there all you brave anonymous ideological purists, enough with the internecine bitch fests over who is hard core enough to escape the dreaded epithet of neocon. This is not a defense of neoconservatism but a defense of a guy who has done more to keep truth than almost all of us combined(Steve Sailer excepted).

The sane remnant of the West is not a teenage street gang. My handle should remind you all of the fate that befalls a people who would rather squabble than cooperate. If you need some inspiration, go see Lawrence of Arabia's speech on why the Arabs will always be losers. This shit gets old.

-The Judean People's Front

Anonymous said...

If you need some inspiration, go see Lawrence of Arabia's speech on why the Arabs will always be losers.

Where is the speech?

Anonymous said...

the fate that befalls a people who would rather squabble than cooperate.

This principle may also apply with respect to squabbling between the West and Muslims.

Anonymous said...

"Dr. Van Nostrand said

...Being from where I am ,I have the instincts of devious Indian politicians who are no strangers to creating and destroying shaky and haphazard alliances. If in power, I wouldve destroyed the Democratic party in a couple of years by staging riots between blacks,hispanics ,gays , create anti Semitic incidents and attribute them to... well take your pick .If the media ignores such stories, as they often do, no problem.

Doctor tapes of anchors making racist comments against blacks/Hispanics and arrange for an angry mob to head to the news station,lynch or rape the anchors and just burn it down the premises.
Try and bury THAT story!

Illegal? yes,immoral? Certainly. Evil? Perhaps? A NECESSARY evil? Bingo
Future generations will thank me

I see it as aiding Shiva's dance of destruction- He destroys all that is unnatural and pretentious in order to clean the slate so to speak."


Sir, to quote a famous Seinfeld character you might relate to "You are a bad man ...a very, very, very bad man..."

But I respect your ingenuity.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


There is a giant aporia where IQ is everything, but nonetheless our high IQ are so stupid that Dr. Van Nostrand, a man not even from this country, could come in an totally hoodwink said elite. Tell me has the Indian elite even once driven back an invader. I mean Alexander the Great marched into India. When even remote cultures can march right in and take over maybe your culture isn't the best to brag about its statecraft abilities."


I am not sure where to begin with your stupidity and utter ignorance.
I already mentioned on how to deal with the media!
You really think the American media is one to "speak truth to power"?
When attacked ferociously-literally, they will apologize,grovel and surrender.

As for India,your example is Alexander?! LOL ,Alexander pretty much marched into every country EXCEPT India.Oh sure he conquered the lame tribes which comprise today's Pakistan.He very nearly lost to the king Porus who didnt even have a decent army by Indian standards!
He may have wanted to go further and battle the powerful state of Magadha led by Chandragupta Maurya but his soldiers did not.Battling a third rate army like Porus itself was too much for them and they were homesick and wanted to head back(lets dispense with the euphemisms and call it a retreat)

Who else? Indians drove back the fierce Scythians and imperial Parthians. Indians were pretty much the only people to decisively defeat the Huns under the Guptas,Baladitya and Harshavardha. Though the Huns did manage to inflict considerable damage in north India.

Arabs trounced through Middle East,Iran and Southern Europe in less than 150 years.It took much longer to get a foothold into India-ie Sindh
Afghanistan under the 10th century was firmly Hindu and Buddhist territory and they had successfully repulsed various Arab invasions and indeed collected tribute from the Caliphs for safe passage of their generals.
Where the Arabs had failed the Turks had succeeded.But they were restricted mostly to Northwestern India and Delhi. Their incursions into the south were failures and the Mughals were barely 4 generations in when Muslim power was in full retreat due to the Maratha resurgence.

So let me get this straight again- you were accusing a people who defeated the Greeks(Seleukus Nicator by Chandragupta Maurya) while Alexander was still alive,defeated the Huns while Romans and Chinese were paying tribute.Held out the Muslim hegemony for a 1000 years while the Byzantines and Sassanids fell in less than a decade of being unable to defeat invaders?
Sometimes the ignorance(or is it willful blindness) of the white hbd lot is just appalling!


Anonymous said...

Anon,

It's a famous line from the biopic. "Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."

I just figured most people in the comments section would know what I was referencing. My apologies.

-The Judean People's Front

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Yea I am sure you would have succeeded where Richard Nixon failed. Do you really think you could foment racial riots across the country and not have anyone find out? The Democrats get away with stuff because the media covers for them not because they are especially cagey. "

I think you are quite confused -Richard Nixon actually ended the race riots. We are talking about a guy who pretty much made affirmative action the law of the land.

A pretty much clueless nation like India hoodwinked him and stared him down in war of 1971 ie the liberation of Bangladesh and the conclusive defeat of Pakistan(4500 POWs!
Indira Gandhi wasnt the brightest bulb in the box but she bypassed Nixon and Kissinger(going as far as make Kissinger wait 6 hours in her office before she met with him) and crushed Nixon's ally Pakistan.
He let liberals walk all over with South Vietnam when they wrecked all his hard earned victories and handed the country over to the communists.
He fell for Israel's apocalyptic scenario of being destroyed by Syrian and Egyptian forces in 1973 and provided them with logistical,material and diplomatic support which they wanted but didnt really need.

This notion of Nixon of a scheming Machiavellian is mostly liberal propaganda. If he was incredibly devious as perceived ,he wouldn't have lost his presidency for something as stupid as Watergate!

George W Bush even in his naivete and less distinguished credentials ran circles around the media and democrats which Nixon couldnt do.
Of course towards the tail end of his 2nd term, he had sort of given up and except for Iraq, he just phoned it in.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Sir, to quote a famous Seinfeld character you might relate to "You are a bad man ...a very, very, very bad man..."

But I respect your ingenuity."

LOL, that quote is apropo! After all it was a Pakistani character who said that! You dont want to know what plans I have in store for THEM!

Anonymous said...

Anon Said: This principle may also apply with respect to squabbling between the West and Muslims.

I can see what they would want from the West but what would the West want from them? I'm not being snarky, that is a serious question. Unnecessary provocation is always a bad move, but what does the West gain from uniting with the Muslims? BTW I am not overtly hostile to Islam as such, but most Muslim societies have very poor human capital, with the exception of certain subpopulations of Iran, Turkey, and maybe Lebanon and Syria.

-The Judean People's Front

Dr Van Nostrand said...


It's a famous line from the biopic. "Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."

I just figured most people in the comments section would know what I was referencing. My apologies.

-The Judean People's Front"

I got the reference JPF, was about to back you up when I got sidelined with India stuff..priorities!

Dont apologize for other peoples ignorance, JPF.As whiskey may say thats very beta and render you incapable of dating nubile white women ;-)

Anonymous said...

I can see what they would want from the West but what would the West want from them? I'm not being snarky, that is a serious question.

One benefit is substantial but not profound. In squabbling, you waste resources and weaken yourself against greater threats.

A second benefit is related to that and is also not all so profound. It can be nice sometimes to have allies, additional sources of help and strength in politics.

There is a third consideration that is slightly harder to describe, but as far as benefits may boil down to the second one above. Alt-right and Islam have much in common in their values (desire to preserve cultures, to have families, to reproduce) and may have a common enemy--the globalizing transnational ruling class.

Anonymous said...

It's a famous line from the biopic. "Sherif Ali, so long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are."

When you said Lawrence of Arabia I thought you might have meant the actual Lawrence of Arabia. Oh, well, Hollywood.

Anonymous said...

You are the horribly ignorant one. Nixon attempted to smash the New Deal coalition into pieces precisely on the lines you are suggesting. Affirmative action and the creation of the Hispanic ethnic groupings were part of this along with the Southen Strategy. As for India hoodwinking I assure you he had bigger things on his plate although I'm sure he was super impressed with the 4500 POWs you captured. How perfectly Indian of you to squeal with delight that your PM, whose own protection detail would ultimately assasinate, made him wait for a few hours. I leave it to the more mat oriented to calculate how many Indians took dumps in the street during that time. As for your claim that he let the left lose Vietnam that is patently false. Vietnamization was successful as the surprise victory of the ARVN against the North's 1972 tank offensive; however, there was little he and then Ford could do once he left office confronted with a left wing congress that wouldn't provide air support to south Vietnam.

Honestly when your claim to fame is beating too nomadic tribes both of whom have bestowed on the English language terms to describe a form of retreat, your culture sucks. It isn't hard to foment a riot in Indian because you have 10,000 castes many of which are allowed to die in the street. My point about Alexander was that he managed to conquer India with and army originating in Greece. To be beaten be an army that far from home is embarassing. It was embarassing when the Brits did it to us in 1812 and we learned our lesson. India just went right on being conquered. And those werent just Pakistani tribes he beat at hydaspes. Porus was the king of lands which extended well into modern india.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


You are the horribly ignorant one. Nixon attempted to smash the New Deal coalition into pieces precisely on the lines you are suggesting. Affirmative action and the creation of the Hispanic ethnic groupings were part of this along with the Southen Strategy. As for India hoodwinking I assure you he had bigger things on his plate although I'm sure he was super impressed with the 4500 POWs you captured. How perfectly Indian of you to squeal with delight that your PM, whose own protection detail would ultimately assasinate, made him wait for a few hours. I leave it to the more mat oriented to calculate how many Indians took dumps in the street during that time. As for your claim that he let the left lose Vietnam that is patently false. Vietnamization was successful as the surprise victory of the ARVN against the North's 1972 tank offensive; however, there was little he and then Ford could do once he left office confronted with a left wing congress that wouldn't provide air support to south Vietnam.

Honestly when your claim to fame is beating too nomadic tribes both of whom have bestowed on the English language terms to describe a form of retreat, your culture sucks. It isn't hard to foment a riot in Indian because you have 10,000 castes many of which are allowed to die in the street. My point about Alexander was that he managed to conquer India with and army originating in Greece. To be beaten be an army that far from home is embarassing. It was embarassing when the Brits did it to us in 1812 and we learned our lesson. India just went right on being conquered. And those werent just Pakistani tribes he beat at hydaspes. Porus was the king of lands which extended well into modern india."

My dear ,its not enough to have access to google search. UNDERSTANDING what you find is a different matter all together.

LOL you actually think affirmative action was a well thought out scheme by Nixon. We all know how that worked out!
I am not squealing with delight on the cold India U.S relations of that era which hurt India more than U.S.
However Nixon was wrong on Bangladesh and wrong on Pakistan. Yahya khan was a butcher and a genocidal maniac.
I never stated that Indira Gandhi was a brilliant strategist.That was my entire point.Do you even know how to read?
And yes ,getting assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards(despite being warned about them) was due to her own lack of prudence.

Your point about Alexander remains as stupid as before.Alexander was famous for pretty much conquering everyone is his path but he stopped at India.What part of this don't you understand?

Everyone was conquered at one point or the other in history
Even England was ravaged by the Danes and Normans.

India has been around for past 7000 years or so of recorded history so it has seen its share of invasions.
The U.S is barely 300 years old(hardly the length of the Gupta dynasty)I hope that this keeps things in perspective but knowing you,probably not

As for Parthian shot, do you even know what it means?
Are you even aware that these Parthians you loathe defeated the armies of Crassus and later Hadrian efforts in Mesopotamia?
Are you even aware that these despised Scythians were in vogue briefly in the 17th century where a few fanciful geneologists attempted to create a Scythian lineage for the Saxons ..with blessings from the royal family?

Repeat after me

google search<> knowledge

Dr Van Nostrand said...

As for Vietnam and Nixon, to paraphrase a former sec of state" what difference does it make" how his Vietnam strategy failed-it failed in the end.

What is incredibly stupid is you making excuses for him-oh once he was out of office,there was nothing he could do!
LOL are you for real? THIS is the extant of your geopolitic thinking?

Lets compare this with Reagan's legacy, the Soviet Union collapsed AFTER Reagan left office due to his effots.ie his legacy is one of triumph and Nixon's largely of failure.
That he was not in office ,and that due to something as stupid and trivial as Watergate, is not a valid excuse.

I also noticed you very deftly avoiding mentioning the Huns.Well this "nomadic" tribe utterly devastating Europe and much of Asia.
The Abbasids dismissed Mongol ambassador as barbaric and nomadic and see what happened to them.

It is one thing to underestimate current enemies of which one may not know a whole lot but to dismiss an influential conquering tribe in a bygone era,about whom volumes of records are available, as "nomadic" just to score some cheap points in a debate is another level of stupid.

Anonymous said...

DVN,

Thanks for the advice. I sure wouldn't want to loose accesess to those carousel riding nubile fillies;-) Too bad they hate hate hate me now. I actually feel kinda bad making fun of Whiskey because he does actually have good points when he isn't hyper defensive about Israel/the Jews or viewing everything through his alpha/beta lense.

I don't want to engage in the very same internecine bickering I was condemning. I try to leave the anti-semites alone too, as the smart ones such as Svigor, Rob, and David seem more or less on the side of sanity and the crazies are not worth engaging at all.

As far as the India stuff goes, it's unfortunate that so much anti-Indian sentiment accompanies anti-immigrant sentiment. I respect Indian history and culture, I just don't want large numbers of indians in White countries. I don't understand, for example, why people who are opposed to H1B visas feel the need to criticize ancient Hindu martial prowess. It also seems silly that traditionalists/rightist that see no problem in forging alliances with islamic knuckle draggers are so hostile to Hindu Nationalists. Aren't Hindu Nationalists equally hostile towards global consumer culture, feminism, and multi-culturalism? In fact, one would think that people so hostile towards semitic influence would wholeheartedly support "Aryans" against their Abrahamic rivals. Sigh... people sometimes.

-The Judean People's Front

Dr Van Nostrand said...

DVN,

JPF:Thanks for the advice. I sure wouldn't want to loose accesess to those carousel riding nubile fillies;-) Too bad they hate hate hate me now. I actually feel kinda bad making fun of Whiskey because he does actually have good points when he isn't hyper defensive about Israel/the Jews or viewing everything through his alpha/beta lense.

DVN: Ya me too. I admire Whiskeys stalwart defense of Jews in general but he undermines his argument by the standard white women are evil thing.

JPF:I don't want to engage in the very same internecine bickering I was condemning. I try to leave the anti-semites alone too, as the smart ones such as Svigor, Rob, and David seem more or less on the side of sanity and the crazies are not worth engaging at all.

DVN: Truth be told ,I actually respect(if that is the word) people like Svigor- at least he is honest about his anti semitism. Half this lot here dont want to admit they are anti semites but claim to love love love the Palestinians. Something I find hard to swallow.

JPF:As far as the India stuff goes, it's unfortunate that so much anti-Indian sentiment accompanies anti-immigrant sentiment. I respect Indian history and culture, I just don't want large numbers of indians in White countries.

DVN: Neither do I. I have acknowledged the negative aspects of Indians in Western or even African countries before.
As long Indians remain hovering around 1-2% ,do their software,doctor,spelling bee thing and give the country an occasional Jindal,Haley or Shyamalan,they will be liked and respected.But I cant see anything good on the horizon when they reach something like say 7%.So for both white Americans and Indian Americans /Indians,its best not to exceed this number.

JPF:I don't understand, for example, why people who are opposed to H1B visas feel the need to criticize ancient Hindu martial prowess.

DVN: I dont know why either. Probably ignorance coupled with the need to take cheap shots. Of course I get defensive-no man in any society like his tribe to be called non martial(even if it isnt martial) but in the case of Hindus,they WERE quite martial - just not so much anymore.
This change in character is not that unusual-look at the Swedes,they gave the world the Vikings now they cower in fear lest their women find out that they have peeing standing up without their permission!

Dr Van Nostrand said...



JPF:It also seems silly that traditionalists/rightist that see no problem in forging alliances with islamic knuckle draggers are so hostile to Hindu Nationalists. Aren't Hindu Nationalists equally hostile towards global consumer culture, feminism, and multi-culturalism?

DVN:There are some who are and some who arent. HN is a pretty wide net to cast where you have socialists and free market types as well.
I dont like to think of myself as a Hindu nationalist but more of a Hindu revivalist- ie change should not be top down but within strengthening communities with increased religious understanding.
Most of HN founders were actually atheists who were more influenced by Garibaldi than any ancient Hindu hero.Of course they have Hindu heroes but they are all recent political individuals who fought either Muslims or the British.
It is hard for HNs to be against multiculturism in India LOL.However some fascist types like Savarkar who had little knowledge of Indian history or culture would make absurd statements like "one race,one god,one language,one people"
HNs cleverly coopted feminism as nothing more than the worship of female dieties already present in Hinduism and honoring the traditional views of women!Nothing more to see here!

JPF: In fact, one would think that people so hostile towards semitic influence would wholeheartedly support "Aryans" against their Abrahamic rivals. Sigh... people sometimes.

DVN: Actually there are neo Pagans in Europe who are very open to Hinduism.
But then again so are many neo Nazis. See the neo Nazi website counter-currents.com where the authors discuss all sorts of esoteric Vedic Sanskrit subjects and even sing praises of Bollywood(as it celebrats traditionalist values unlike that cursed cynical Jew dominated Hollywood!)
Am not quite comfortable with the continuing Nazi obsession with Vedic culture.
The last guy who used our imagery and vocabulary did some serious PR damage to our brand ;-)

Dr Van Nostrand said...


As for getting the Dem/Diversity groups to hate each other, discipline is enforced by their HATE HATE HATE of ordinary White guys. And their desire to loot the same."

Whiskey ,this may make your head explode but I work in the Middle East and these high maintenance Arab women accustomed to their ultra macho alpha Arab men often yearn to date a white man.

I have seen where demure kohl eyed abbaya clad upper class GCC women(not the Palestinian or Syrian riff raff LOL) often flirt blatant with Brits and Americans.

I know quite a few men who have sex with them.

Quite a few even married them-some converted to Islam,some didnt.

It would appear what is stopping more of these women is really social stigma and a lack of opportunity

And these are your humble corporate drones or middle management for the most part.

So all is not lost, you have uh made your mark on the enemy territory as well.

Relax


Anonymous said...

"Integrity. Loyalty. Balls."

Here's ONE BIG DIFFERENCE.
Murray always profusely praised everything Jewish and remained withim the neocon camp.(And recently, he showed he's now more for buns than balls with his 'gay marriage' crap).

Richwine's REAL crime was less the stuff about IQ than his links, however tenuous, with some alt-right groups that are CRITICAL of Jewish power. That's what really pissed off the likes of Rubin.

Suppose Murray had been critical of Jewish power and/or Israel. AEI would have kicked him out long ago.

Anonymous said...

One of the most powerful conservative organizations gets shaky in the knees and wets its pants because a Jewish woman called it 'bad doggy'.

Tsarnev brothers had real balls.

rob said...

I don't want to engage in the very same internecine bickering I was condemning. I try to leave the anti-semites alone too, as the smart ones such as Svigor, Rob, and David seem more or less on the side of sanity and the crazies are not worth engaging at all.

I don't think I'm exceptionally anti-Semitic. I don't hate Jewish people. I don't even think a large minority are even bahaving badly, much less doing evil things. I suppose I can't even fault them for voting Democratic.

The Republican party is run by lunatics and monsters. The part of the base they even pretend to listen to, the Jeeboo people, are even crazier. It isn't as if R's are working any less hard to break the country. The people who called the strategy of 'cutting' taxes, increasing spending spending and borrowing the difference in so that the federal government couldn't afford social spending called it 'Starving the the Beast. The Republicans claim support decades of party like it's 1999, so now that the beast is beginning to starve, they say that they're the fiscally responsible party.

I point out when Jews do bad things that are consistent with anti-Semitic stereotypes in the hopes that Jewish people with lots of power and influence will start shaming each other on bad behavior. some reasons. Very few people ever mention noticing that so many New America boosters are Jewish. It may very well seem that Jews are solidly and homogenously part of the professional-managerial class. The university administration sort has gotten a pass so far on their greed in taking advantage of tax-payer generosity. The backlash on mindblowing amounts of capital being sequestered in the tax-free endowments of profit-seeking non-profits will be heavily directed at Jewish people.

Look at the Republicans and neocons. Conservatives were very easily led, but no one can be led that easily into something they really don't want to do. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld...not Jewish. Who do you think conservatives will blame? Similarly, when immigration reform turns out badly, do you think many Democrats will blame themselves? No, they'll blame Zuckerberg, Brooks, Rubin, Adelson...It's almost fair, nearly everyone is in favor of deportation, yet here are Jewish billionaires buying both parties, and prominent Jewish media types gloating about breaking white America. No one in public talks about anything but the best case scenarios, because anything else is collapse or dystopia and too awful to think about.

I think Zbug, Brooks, Rubin et al should quit while they're ahead. I'm not a bad guy drooling over Holocaust fantasies. I'm a not-all-that-great guy who has Holocaust nightmares. I think if Brooks, Rubin etc realized that dystopia and collapse will be very bad for everyone, and especially Jews, they would change course.

Though the best case scenario is that I'm mentally ill, like I've said before

Anonymous said...

Rob,

You don't fit my definition of an anti-semite, but insofar as you are a bright guy who regularly writes pretty harsh things about the tribe, you fit in with commenters like David and Svigor in the iSteve AS "smart set".

In my personal categorization scheme, I would class you and David as Judeo-skeptics, but the term isn't all that widely used, so I opted for a more familiar one. It was not intended as an insult, as I don't attach any moral value to one's opinions about any given ethnic group.

Svigor does seems like a genuine anti-semite given that the Jewish question seems to be a central focus for him. That said,I don't view him as malicious or destructive. His general views on the tribe don't concern me. He's a smart, funny guy that appears to share many of my tastes and ideas. Frankly, any one who isn't a PC lunatic is fine by me so long as their views are less destructive than the reigning insanity. The way I see it, there is the Borg on one side and the rest of us on the other.

-The Judean People's Front

Anonymous said...

Rob,

I share your fears that the Rubins of the world are going to keep f*cking everything up, for all of us. They aren't doing it alone, but they do enough and they do it visibly and shamelessly. I'm in a position were I currently suffer the consequences of our elite's shortcomings yet stand to inherit the whirlwind of vengeful rage when it inevitably falls apart. I'm not looking forward to the future.

-The Judean People's Front