Good Lord, Mr. “Tanstaafl,” but it’s my contention we desperately need Jew-Expulsion, period–this, to save our lives, that’s all. After all, Jews are Talmudists (see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for expo/ref. on Talmud) by definition, hence murderous psychopaths, the Talmud simply a manual for ritualized murder of gentiles–the “ritual” simply the various methods by which Jews lie, conspire, commit their various frauds, scams, etc. For note Jews merely lie to themselves and one another and then to gentiles, all part of their war against the truth and reality.

Only question now is how to do it (Jew-expulsion), and I submit Christianity is the best, easiest way, and we should emulate most successful Jew-expulsion of all time, that of St. Constantine the Great. Hence “liberalism” is justified by reason, strictly understood.

So therefore, we must simply re-define Christianity rationalizing it, and removing the stinking, putrid mysticism which has essentially destroyed it for present purposes.

Thus we invoke over-riding theologic/philosophic theme of Gosp. JOHN: TRUTH vs. Jew lies and conspiracy. And this emphasis upon Gosp. JOHN means drawing distinction with St. Paul, a good guy, but too Jew-oriented, too “faith”-oriented, which “faith” tends to be taken in mystic-type fashion. Also St. Paul emphasized “love,” but we must understand it in more limited fashion, subordinate to HONESTY, and in relation with righteous, but rational hatred (aversion).

(a) Thus we must see Christianity as more rationalized aesthetic and dramatization, esp. literature–and more in accord w. Gosp. JOHN, as I note above.

(b) “Faith” is simply LOYALTY in general, and specifically it entails what one is loyal to–truth and honesty, for example. “Faith IS NOT an alternative method to reason.

(c) Revolutionary ETHIC then must be HONESTY, in honor of aforementioned TRUTH, this OVER “love” and esp. against Pelagian hereticalist “good-evil” delusion/fallacy of children.

(d) Finally we should see and treat forthrightly such Christianity as weapon against Jews, absolutely ANTI-SEMITIC (as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13, anti-Talmud). “Think not I came to bring peace; rather, I come to bring a sword” (Gosp. MATT 10:34).

For Jews are the essence of present cultural disease, primary carriers (specifically of subjectivism, foundation for lying techniques), but their immediate weak-point is “Judeo-Christian” (JC–see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists, esp. the leaders, who pretend, for example “Christ was Jew” (hence Talmudist).

CONCLUSION: Thus removal of Jews requires removal of their closest accomplices among gentiles–that’s the weak-point to Judeo-conspiracy (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy). Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Of further interest is the shift Mark attempts. In June 2006, he wrote:

“I understand perfectly well that Jewish community groups have set themselves against the existence of the white, gentile majority out of perceived ethnic self-interest.”

Now he writes:

“Yes, there are Jewish groups and individuals who have acted against the majority whether out of a commitment to liberalism or perceived self-interest.”

The removal of “existence of the white gentile” and “ethnic” is telling. Mark writes as if it’s natural there are Muslims in West. It’s natural that churches are acting against the existence of whites. It’s natural that school teachers are acting against their own ethnic interests. The question he will not entertain is why all these groups are working to further the ethnic interests of one particular group.

Oz is like Canada. The ability to speak freely , unlike the US, is severely restricted and severely punished. If he would just say he is afraid of the repercussions of speaking against power, then it’s understandable. However, he insists in denying that which he believed in 2006.

C’est la guerre.

Desmond jones

I do not lightly violate my now memory-holed promise to not post here if so requested. Your actions today demonstrate not only a willingness to silence opinions with which you disagree but also to distort them. I have been critical of your conduct at my blog. Should you find the time you are welcome to comment at A Censorious Debate.

After reflecting a moment I deleted the comment myself. The way Richardson phrased his last comment is clever. If I continue to comment he can easily portray me as the bad guy for harassing him. But if I don’t comment to disagree with him then by his own liberal values I confirm his distorted characterization of my views.

There is no conservative at Oz Conservative. My mistake in thinking there might be.

However, I would say again that instead of accusing liberals of not being true to their principles and therefore of being hypocrites, we should understand that they ARE being true to their principles. Which then requires us to understand what those principles are.

So when Auster whines about others trying to silence him, and then turns around and calls for someone else to be silenced, he’s not being a hypocrite. Well of course he is, but what he’s telling us is “hypocrisy” is not something a “white liberal”, like himself, feels guilty about. As I’ve written before, Auster is first and foremost pro-jew. That principle explains why it’s evil to curtail his speech, and good to silence his critics. Thanks for explaining that Larry.

Jacob Levy has posted on the OC thread. He claims the portion Mark Richardson quoted is not his “voice” – that he actually disagrees with it. Boy that’s a relief.

As Mark wrote a bit earlier:

Professor Levy is not amongst the most radical proponents of coercion. I quoted his framing of the debate to show how offensive and how radical the debate itself is, rather than to single out Professor Levy.

Well now that Levy has backed away we sure could use some other examples. Hmmmm. Perhaps one of those three other more radical proponents I noted in the post that got deleted? Maybe Tim Wise? Morris Dees? Abe Foxman? But then we don’t want jews to feel singled out. Is there some really radical anti-White non-jew “liberal white” to singl…I mean cite? Somebody with comparable influence, or who said something as extreme as any of those people I’ve mentioned. It shouldn’t be hard when nearly the entire political class shares the “liberal” orthodoxy.

In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions.

Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal–and famous for its liberal guilt–of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.

His answer was: “ANTI-SEMITE!!! An ANTI-SEMITE is calling me an ANTI-SEMITE!!!”