Mill’s quote

Or:

Conspiracy theories in white nationalism

 
This is a postscript of what I said yesterday about Richard Spencer and friends on the subject of John F. Kennedy’s assassination by Oswald—and by Oswald alone.

My trouble with white nationalists is not only that they are inferior to the National Socialists on all counts. Many of them also commit the cardinal sin of haughtiness. I won’t elaborate much on this accusation except saying that, of the few works of the cannon in academic philosophy that I find readable, one of them is On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. Consider this statement from Mill’s book:

‘He who knows only his own side of the case,
knows little of that’.

Spencer et al who give some credence to the conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination know little of their subject, as they have not listened the other side by, say, reading Vincent Bugliosi’s book. And exactly the same can be said of what ‘truther’ nationalists believe about 9/11: they know only their own side.

Haughtiness.

I won’t even discuss these topics in this site with them unless they do their homework. If for example they have spent a hundred hours reading conspiratorial literature on JFK, they now have to spend a hundred more of the literature debunking the claims, etcetera.

Published in: on October 6, 2017 at 12:05 pm  Comments (3)  

3 Comments

  1. Although this academic is a normie, he explains pretty well Mill’s quotation in the context of SJWs and campus PC:

  2. Concerning JFK, what do such details matter and why spend any time proving or disproving these details? The essence of any murder case is motive, cui bono. After that, the case is a matter of presenting evidence to prove the motive. Considering the age of this case, the only matter remaining of any importance is the motive.

    It is simple to solve the JFK assassination, just examine who had the motive to risk a covert assassination of a sitting president and then examine the most noticeable hostile race surrounding operation. Note that to chance such a huge risk requires a very high motivation. A lone disgruntled commie doesn’t it cut it, unless of course one is looking for a scapegoat. Note the scapegoat did not live long enough to talk because a (((Jew))) conveniently murdered him before he had the chance to tell his side of the story.

    1962 Dimona, a facility whose existence Jews vehemently denied at that time. – http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb547-Kennedy-Dimona-and-the-Nuclear-Proliferation-Problem-1961-1962/

    The gold standard Kennedy was proposing in 1963. – http://www.hermes-press.com/frs1.htm

    (1) Name another group that had anywhere near this level a motivation to murder a sitting president.

    (2) Name another group that had/has sufficient influence in the American government to incorporate the secret service and other federal agencies, required in such a subversive plot.

    Arthur Krimm – Jew – LBJ’s closest advisor.

    Abraham Zapruder – Jew – Film maker that just happened to be onsite with his camera to make the film used in the Warren Commission investigation.

    Jack Rubinstein – Jew – Oswald’s assassin

    C.D. Jackson – unknown – “Syke-warfare” expert who orchestrated the Buchenwald lie. Later editor of life magazine who purchased the Zapruder film used for the investigation.

    These are just a few of the curious figures – No doubt there are many more. Historically assassinations happen when a crazed Jew jumps out of a crowd to fire a deadly bullet. JFK was rather unique in the use of a “lone gunman” dupe firing from long distance. No doubt, Jews did not want to direct any unneeded attention to themselves in this matter.

    • I am tempted to write a full entry responding this way of reasoning within the context of what I say about ‘paleologic thinking’ in Day of Wrath. Let’s see if I manage to squeeze the time to do it…


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: