Byzantine discussions at Majority Rights

Monocausalism again!

Now that I’ve been called Jew for the third time, this occasion for rejecting conspiracy theories such as those imagined about John F. Kennedy’s assassination (in an Occidental Observer thread where I also dared to mention 9/11 in the context of Holocaust denialism/revisionism), a comment at Majority Rights on the single Jewish-cause hypothesis caught my attention.

Precisely the Majority Rights writer who last year labeled me “Jew” in a featured article for my skepticism about 9/11 conspiracy theories (search “J Richards” in this entry) has been given admin powers at Majority Rights. A couple of days ago he abused such powers and deleted a comment of someone who hilariously scoffed at Richards’ monocausalism.

Admin powers to a single Jewish causer, at a major nationalist site? What a shame…

Since I think in Spanish, my dominion of the English language is but a fraction of the mastery of the English language that you can read at Majority Rights. Yet I would never, ever exchange my simple, straightforward honesty for the pointless sophistication that in Spain we label as discusiones bizantinas (in reference to the pointless, ultra-sophisticated theological discussions in ancient Constantinople).

What’s the point of authoring in-depth articles on Heidegger’s ontology while at the same time you believe in conspiratorial nonsense that any High Scholl kid can debunk by merely reading Skeptical Inquirer? Take a look at the Occidental Observer thread on the Holocaust I referred to above and search for my recent aggregations to see what I mean.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/byzantine-discussions-at-majority-rights/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

37 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I share your concerns about the holocaust fable. It was this that lead to my own awakening. The primary issues of WN have always been interracial violence, immigration, Islam, jewry, mixing and feminism.

    At some point, we need to move beyond those points and focus on the training of whites. That thread was 300 comments long. Outrageous. A terrific waste of manpower.

    We need local food supplies, economy, education. We need more emphasis on individual skills in many areas. And so on. The next higher level begins implementation. We may either spend our time arguing these issues or improving ourselves.

    • Not sure if the so-called “holocaust” is a fable. Have you read at least my comments in that thread?

    • @ Ryu

      I share your concerns about the holocaust fable. It was this that lead to my own awakening. The primary issues of WN have always been interracial violence, immigration, Islam, jewry, mixing and feminism.

      I share your concerns, as well.

      Your introduction to WN’st thought, however, took me by surprise, as this misconception has seen a lot of print lately. White Nationalism is the rejection of reactionary politics, and although the above enumerations are valid in and of themselves, they do not make up the biggest part of WN’sm which is the formulation of philosophy, working street activism, and political maneuvers which will open they way to a legitimate Political State.

      One of the preeminent voices on this subject can be found here

      Or generally here

      This man was a member of RJM’s Silent Brothers (now defunct), and was at the starting gate of a new way of thinking – that of ‘white nationalism’, not to be confused with what is left of the ‘old guard’, or neo-con BS.

  2. Chechar, what are you waiting for to study the question? Stop making educated guesses, and dive into that stuff.

    Would you die without having an answer on what really happened in German concentration camps?

    • Deviance:

      You missed my point at TOO and you missed it here.

      You cannot ask the agnostic of the Holocaust to spend, literally, years of research. It’s up to the true believer, whether Holocaust affirmer or Holocaust denier, to listen the other side.

      As a “non-member of the juror” who hasn’t listened any of the prosecutor/attorney arguments, I can safely remain neutral. On the other hand, those revisionists who have “left the courtroom” every time that the “prosecutor” speaks (metaphor interpreted: those who have not spent the same amount of time researching the other side as I did when I was deluded), have to amend their ways and stay in courtroom—however painful the arguments of the prosecutor may be.

  3. “On the other hand, those revisionists who have “left the courtroom” every time that the “prosecutor” speaks”

    Such as? All revisionists I know of have always striven for a public debate on the question, debate which has always been refused.

    • Missing the point again. It’s not an external jihad I’m talking about, but an internal one. See again what I said of my gradual, agonic apostasy from parapsychology in the above link. Deniers simply have not dared to experience such mental warfare within their minds.

      If you have spent, say, ten years researching only revisionist material, you now need to spend at least four years researching the references of the Wikipedia article also linked above.

      That, and only that, would be an internal jihad by means of experience, at least, a 40/60 percent of cognitive dissonance.

  4. I know how you feel. I get labeled “Jew” for every little thing, just ’cause I’m not a monocausalist. Still, the Mossad/CIA assassinated JFK nonetheless. JFK wanted to put an end to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government ; It’s privately owned. Washington doesn’t control the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Reserve controls Washington. The Federal Reserve Bank is owned by a handful of Jewish/European banking families : The Jewish banking families of Europe are the true rulers of the United States.
    I’m not a monocausalist because they’re so many non-Jewish Whites who support and uphold the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. You can find those whites in the Freemasonry Halls pledging eternal loyalty to the Jew banker/rulers of the USA , as the venal and mercernary whites take their secret oaths ; Oaths they consider to be greater than American law ; Secret oaths that Trump American law ; Secret oaths that Trump the oath taken on-the-witness-stand in American courtrooms, as per the freemasons.
    JFK was making moves to undermine the power of the Federal Reserve Banking System, ipso facto, JFK was assassinated by the Mossad/CIA , with the support and encouragement from high-ranking freemasons in Washington, including Lyndon Baines and J. Edgar.
    I’m not a moncausalist because the Mossad/CIA attack on New York City on 9/11 had the support and backing of many high-ranking non-Jewish white-American Freemasons in Washington. Not sure if Cheney and/or Bush are Jewish or not : Really doesn’t matter. The Mossad attack on the World Trade Center had the full support and encouragement of both Bush Jr.[ and Senior ] and the full support and encouragement of Dick Cheney: All Freemasons.
    That’s why I’m not a monocausalist. Too many non-Jewish whites trip over themselves to pledge their eternal loyalty to their Jew-Banking Masters. I’m not suprised it’s all done in secrecy, It’s so revolting, the venality and the obeisance :
    ” O homines ad servitutem paratos” : men fit to be slaves.

    • I’ll make with you the same point I made on Deviance: Have you read at least one single book debunking the JFK conspiracy theories, e.g., Vincent Bugliosi’s?

      If not, I cannot consider that you have listened to the prosecutor—without quotation marks because Bugliosi was, literally, a prosecutor in real life.

      • @ Chechar
        Only Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for JFK’s assassination. That’s why the Dallas cops let Jacob Rubenstein — well known by Dallas police to be in the mob — into the Dallas Police Headquarters ; And let Rubenstein walk through Police Headquarters unimpeded– no questions asked, no frisk — and let Rubenstein go down into the basement of Police Headquarters where the cops were holding Lee Harvey, and stood by as Rubenstein shot Oswald.
        After an American president is assassinated, and the cops have a definite suspect, the cops allow Rubenstein — a man they already know is involved in the mob– to walk unimpeded through Police Headquarters [ while carrying no less] then down into the basement ; To the very place the police are holding Lee Harvey Oswald ; The very one who killed the president : the “lone assassin”, and somehow the cops were unable to stop Rubenstein from killing JFK’s “lone assassin”. Unfriggin’ unbelievable.
        Bugliosi is not telling us the truth. I don’t care how sterling many consider Bugliosi. I never read his tome about the JFK assasination. I’ve read online, and watched many videos at the bugliosi website, Bugliosi’s analysis and his final conclusion about the JFK assassination. I don’t buy it. Too many witnesses, and too many people involved with Oswald and Rubenstein, were subsequently and methodically murdered in the aftermath of the assassination.

    • Wow man, a lot of conspiracies there. I’ve always saved time and a bit of sanity by just going with Occam’s razor.

      9/11 was done by Muslims. Why? Because America is the primary backer and guarantee of Israeli aggression and survival. That makes the United States a rational and legitimate target.

      One reason for all the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that its easier on the conscious to believe there’s some malicious, omnipotent organization pulling the strings, (however, not saying those groups don’t necessarily exist) then to believe that one’s life and world can be shattered by the physical action and creativity of a few dedicated men.

      Its amazing how much a few radicals, a few box cutters, and the will to die can change the whole world.

      I am not a White Nationalist because I’ve discovered the Jewish conspiracy behind every Western historical event. I’m not a White Nationalist because I’ve found a Jew behind every anti-white organization.

      One can be a White Nationalist without ever picking up the works of David Irving or Taylor or MacDonald or Pierce.

      Simply walk outside in your streets and see that we are retreating in a steady, methodical pace: one block, one neighborhood, one city at a time. The flickering light of occidental civilization, slowly fading with every black on white murder, every rape, and every mixed race child born.

      I didn’t discover the Jewish question through Mein Kampf, I just saw the Jewish double standard: White countries cannot be White, Jewish countries must be Jewish.

      Everything else I’ve subsequently learned have been mere details: details to an ideology that one need only walk your very own streets and neighborhoods to embrace.

      • @bluegrass
        Yes sirre bob. Some Arabs sitting in caves in Afghanistan managed to mastermind and actually pull -off taking down the World Trade Center, and managed to hit the Pentagon, too boot ; Not to mention the cave dwellers managed to halt all air traffic in the USA. Unfortunately for the Afghanis and the Moslems of the Middle-East, Atta’s passport was the only thing at the Trade Center that didn’t turn to ash. Amazingly, Uncle Sam knew within hours [ or was it: one hour?] of the first plane crash into WTC the Moslem cavedwellers in Afghanistan “did it”. Nothing about 9/11 had anything to do with the Mossad ,of course, though Israel benefited the most from 9/11, and the Arabs/Moslems benefited the least from 9/11.

      • Joe:

        Have you at least read this book?









  5. I do not want to read your Wikipedia article for a reason: I am interested in pure, raw, unadulterated facts, and Wikipedia is known to prefer harboring subjective opinions from “experts”, as well as emotional and verbose sentences (just read the “Race and Intelligence” article). Wikipedia is not interested in truth or exactitude (from its own admission), nor in debate, nor in an equal editorial weight given to both side of a story, but in representing the mainstream approach to the story. Which makes it a fundamentally democratic enterprise, despite its insistence it’s not.

    I would be on the contrary very interested to read the conclusions of a recent, non-biased, non-threatening, emotionally neutral report from exterminationist historians answering in a concise manner the, say, ten most well-known arguments of revisionist historians, such as Faurisson’s no holes, no holocaust.

    For now, these famous arguments are still unanswered… unless you think answers like this (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/holes-report/holes-intro.shtml) are answers.

    • I never asked you to read Wikipedia but the scholarly references contained in that article (an article which btw I’ve not even read myself).

  6. Nobody can do what you suggest: it would take decades to verify on the ground each footnote, each testimony and each blueprint contained in every book and referenced book. Everything then becomes an issue of trust, and I trust those who have lied the least during their life overall, i.e. revisionist historians.

    • Please try to understand what I mean. If X true believer has spent 10 years reading revisionist material, and zero mainstream material, his POV might be biased to say the least and at worst s/he may be totally deluded. If X has spent 10 years reading the believers’ side, just as I did when I believed in parapsychology, s/he now has to spend at least 4 years researching mainstream material, to reach at least 40/60% for balancing the previous, internal POV—insofar as the psychological laws of self-delusion prevent us from seeing the real world while we are encapsulated in Self-Sealing Mental Systems (as I was completely encapsulated from 1978 to 1988).

      Hadn’t I spent those four years after 1989 researching the “enemy” side, I would still be a parapsychologist publishing my stuff in parapsychological journals with no clue that I was deceiving myself.

      In scholarly, controversial subjects you really got to listen the other side. Seriously.

  7. I fully understand what you mean, you’re describing a psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias wherein facts contradicting a belief are ignored, or automatically discarded when known.

    What you must already probably know is that everybody on Earth has a confirmation bias. I know no one, in my real life acquaintances or virtual acquaintances, who does not present some degree of it. To take the American political scene as an example, conservatives read conservative newspapers for all their lives, and liberals read liberal newspapers for all their lives, rarely leaving their sheltered and comfortable ideological bunker to go into enemy territory.

    If everybody is like this, is confirmation bias really a disease? I would say that on an evolutionary level it is an advantage. Confirmation bias is an anticipatory feature, like prejudices, which allows a human to save time, make quicker decisions, and avoid danger.

    In fact confirmation bias is what the Ancients called instinct; “I do not trust this man because he has already lied repeatedly”, or “I have a bad feeling about this, out of experience”. Of course there is a small probability that the man may, for once, be saying the truth; or that the operation may work. But this small probability is discarded, because the human decision system hates small probabilities.

    Hitler’s ideas were instinctive, for example: his opinion on the Jews did not result from a lecture of lengthy philosophical treatises on the Jewish problem through the ages, but from his own experience in Vienna, a few articles he read in newspapers, and a list of names. Biased? Of course.

    In the same way my opinion on the Holocaust is instinctive; I have the ninety-nine percent confidence that the mainstream thesis on the Holocaust is so worm-eaten (“doomed to the dustbins of history”, from the own words of Jean-Claude Pressac) that it deserves no further consideration. Maybe a glance at the new arguments the mainstream scene comes up with, but certainly not the lecture of 1000-page books.

    Forgetting his emotions and abstaining from instinct is the task of the intellectual or the historian; the “old bearded man”. I do not claim to be an intellectual. You are one. From here our misunderstanding.

    • Not exactly an intellectual, since my knowledge of history and literature is slim. Tom Sunic for instance is a real intellectual. I consider myself someone who had some extremely bizarre experiences in younger life, experiences which forced me to develop intuitive psychological instincts. Which is why I smell self-deceit every time I find a conspiracy theory.

      As to the Holocaust, well, I’d have to study both sides to formulate a truly educated opinion. Meanwhile I lean toward what David Irving believes.

  8. I am curious about your choice of Irving as an authority argument. Firstly because he is himself a denier since the early 1990s. His Wikipedia fiche makes it clear, perhaps too clear (what a nightmare this article is; anybody reading it leaves with the impression Irving is the Devil himself). His only non-denialist statement since then, “Millions of Jews have died during WWII”, was made to unsuccessfully escape Austrian jails.

    Secondly, while Irving seems to be a credible source on World War Two, assessing the thing is impossible. As I’ve said, there are simply too many footnotes to verify on the ground — what if Irving manipulated a testimony, for example, or forged a document? This is beyond my capabilities, and yours as well. I do not believe either historians “rebuking” Irving, since I can’t tell either if they are telling the truth! This is the eternal problem with history and all the social sciences.

    • So you don’t know that Irving changed his mind about the holocaust in recent years (ignore the wiki)?

      • I didn’t know what happened in recent years, since I had no interest in Irving before hearing praise of his Hitler’s War on Counter-Currents and on your ex-blog.

        After researching the issue via a quick Googling of what is said about him on Stormfront, I’ve found out that he has indeed stepped down on the denial rhetoric during the last two years, but:

        1) There is no certitude. He has remained extremely elusive.

        2) He apparently still denies the gassing of Jews in gas chambers.

        3) He apparently still denies the “6 million” magic number.

      • Yes: but IIFR Irving said that 3 million at least died in the camps (or 2 and a half?).

    • It is more exact to say that this is the eternal problem with all sciences that do not offer the possibility of making experiments and replicating them at any time, severely hindering their verifiability. History being the worst of all, since it exclusively relies on testimonies, which can be easily forged without detection.

  9. So Irving is, and will be forever an evil and bigoted denier in the eyes of his interlocutors. As long as you deny the gas chambers, this is the end for your respectability.

    For an understandable reason. The central point of the Holocaust is not that a lot of Jews were killed during a war; one could simply answer “Yes, but so were 60 million Whites”.

    The whole point is that women, children and babies were killed a la chaine in a factory-like fashion, stripped of their clothes, hair and gold teeth, and burnt in ovens (something that you and Greg Johnson fail to comprehend). It is not the killings that are so unique, despicable and immoral (on a Christian universalist viewpoint), it is the method.

    • In fact, 90% of the hostility to race realism and white advocacy in the world can be traced back to the idea that “The Nazis killed children out of racism”.

    • Deviance, have you read the Gulag Archipelago? Innocent Caucasian women and children were killed too by Stalin’s willing excecutioners. Also, the German people were put to hell from 1945 to 1947. Read the Hellstorm review at the side of this blog.

  10. I know of Soviet crimes (notably the psychiatric internment and compulsory medication of at least a hundred dissidents, which is to my mind worse than simple murder), and Allied crimes (hanging of innocent persons, “collateral damage” of bombings, rapes by the hundreds of thousands)but I did not know of persecution targeting children and babies. Even the children of known Nazis were spared after the war, such as Heinrich Himmler’s or Albert Speer’s.

    I do not doubt there were some excesses (say, an entire family massacred by the NKVD) but children were overall spared by the Soviet Union policies.

    In Nazi Germany, according to what most people in the West believe, a policy of genocide targeted them (I learnt in school that newlyborn Jewish babies were drowned in a bucket of water or euthanized by the medic, and potential Jewish mothers sterilized or aborted). Not to mention Dr. Mengele’s experiences.

    This sort of things is repulsive, except for people like me or you, who have rejected Christian moral axiology.

    • but children were overall spared by the Soviet Union policies

      Please read the abridged Gulag!

      • …. And while you’re at it: Read the “abridged” version of 9/11:
        ” Debunking 9/11″ *
        It “bridges over” Mossad/Israeli/ Washington-Insider involvement.
        * Courtesy of Madison Ave. The same ones who ” abridge” every book published.
        Yes. I’ve read “Debunking 9/11”. It’s a good book to read to learn how Madison Ave covers up the truth : Compelling in that sense.

      • You posted it on the wrong thread, not way above.

  11. Jewry is the ‘monster from the id’ for Europeans. Since the beginning, the upper classes have profited greatly from them, in banking, admin, loans etc all used to build the Brit/Dutch/US empires. They were there doing the dirty work and as long as they fed the white ego, everything was fine. Now the ‘admin’ decided to take it all over and whites are like ‘hey, we never knew you.’ Even Kmac says if the Jews in Hollywood made more ‘pro-white’ films, there wouldn’t be a problem.

    This duplicitous thinking makes the j-question so difficult to counter.

    Also, i’m not convinced by the prosecutor/defense argument. eg. Have you listened/read the equal % of material on flat earth? And what if the establishment view has exponentially more power to create ‘evidence’. In the holocaust/9-11 case – they are generally free to create endless material without censure or oversight.

    Agree though that the h-hoax is a pointless discussion. The Germans just helped Israel to 4 nuclear subs!!!! Med-Europe is dead thanks to this treason.

    • I sincerely believe that those —like Greg Johnson— skeptical of typical urban myths in WN like 9/11 and Holocaust denialism are preparing better whites for the coming racial wars than those who subscribe conspiracy theories. Your flat Earth example is a false analogy. I must ask you what I asked Hadding at TOO: when David Irving’s book on Herr Himmler is released are you planning to read it?

      • GJ doesn’t seem skeptical at all re. H-D. I think, like me, he believes it’s a trap because even if 99% of the lies were revealed, the NS still created a harsh policy for Jews (which is the key). Most Revisers seem to be of German-ancestry and I believe this provides their main motivation.

        Racial wars? Have you some more detailed writings on this topic? I suspect any ‘racial wars’ will be pre-planned and provide no benefit to those involved.

        RE: HH. I may but not for any holocaust info.

  12. “skeptical of typical urban myths in WN like 9/11 and Holocaust denialism”

    You have crossed the line from mere skepticism/agnosticism on the Holocaust question to a passionate opinion… You also misrepresent Johnson’s opinions; he is not skeptical of revisionism, just thinks it is counter-productive as a political strategy to talk about it.

    I will not attempt to discuss the Holocaust problem further with you Chechar, since I hardly believe in “debates” (even with intelligent people), have neither the physical endurance nor the mental patience to sum up for you 70 years of revisionism, don’t believe either that revisionism can change the world or advance WN, and am not that emotionally invested in the subject.

    I’ll simply say, as a definitive statement, that the Holocaust issue is not complex, but actually so simple a child could understand it. If only he wants to…

    • I am talking of “denialism” in the sense of David Irving and Mark Weber, who believe that millions of Jews died (2-3?) though they would not use the word “denialism”.

      Throughout this thread you missed my point because you simply don’t want to see it. It’s not up to me to dismiss out of hand what mainstream historians are saying and now even Weber and Irving. It’s up to the deniers to slowly digest the evidence that gradually moved Weber and Irving from sheer denialism to a position that at least a fraction of the claimed millions are accepted by these two.

      If the recent exchange at TOO demonstrates something, it’s that most nationalists simply don’t want to think rationally. Let me put a specific example.

      When back in 1995 I lost faith in the existence of “psi” (cf. what I say in the TOO thread), Eugenio, a parapsychology colleague, became flabbergasted. After all, I was the only one who was publishing parapsychological articles in professional journals outside Mexico.

      When we finally talked, it bothered me that Eugenio limited himself to express his surprise with zero interest about the REASONS that moved me to change. Since he used to be a close colleague and since he never allowed me to explain my reasons, I concluded that he accepted the reality of psi dogmatically.

      Eugenio never studied the skeptical literature of the paranormal, let alone spent years requesting books and back issues of skeptical magazines to “balance” the internal POV ingraniated in our mentalities.

      This happened in the 1990s. Last year I heard about Eugenio from a common friend. Eugenio seems not to have changed his paranormal views.

      When we re-contextualize this anecdote to the Holocaust claims and counter-claims, we get exactly the same picture: let’s avoid the voice of the other side in order to maintain our little defense mechanisms of “negation” and “repression”.

      One example of such primitiveness: at TOO I asked both Hadding Scott and Carolyn Yeager several times whether they would read Irving’s study on Himmler once it’s released.

      None responded. They are behaving like Eugenio to avoid cognitive dissonance.

      Let me ask you this: if you have spent, say, a year reading revisionist literature in your whole life, would you consider reading at least five months of mainstream literature just in case you are wrong on the Holocaust?

      It is a fair question, especially now that even a giant like Irving is starting to sound like a mainstreamer.

      • P.S. Yesterday they finally responded after I asked the question for the last time. Hadding says that he’ll have to wait until the MS is available in PDF; Carolyn, that she would read it if Irving sent her a free copy.

        Do you see? Like Eugenio they are not even trying… The honest attitude of these pair would be to preorder a copy and devour it to see the REASONS why did a colleague changed his mind on such an extremely important subject.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: