Nadzees are evil, Democracy is good.
Jews are Holocaust survivors.
Christianity is for idiots.
Nazis were misled by an anti-Semitic demagogue.
The Holocaust may be false.
Christianity is ‘okay’.
Germans were fighting against Zionists.
The Holocaust is false, Zionism is evil.
Christianity is good.
White Nationalism is good.
Jews are evil.
Christianity is a White religion.
National Socialism is good.
America is evil.
Christianity has been corrupted by Jews.
National Socialism is the only solution.
All countries are evil.
Christianity has always been a Jewish Psy-op.
White segregation is the only solution.
Modernity is evil.
Anti-Christian Paganism is good.
There are no political solutions.
Civilization is evil.
Blood and Soil is the only true religion.
Non-white exterminationism is the only solution.
Most Whites are not true Whites.
All Whites are spiritually flawed.
10% of Whites are true humans, and must survive.
90% of Whites are defective humans, of which 50% must die (males).
100% of non-Whites are sub-humans, and all must die.
Personally I’m a level 9, verging on level 10.
I’ve met some level 4, and only a few level 5.
The leap from 5 to 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes.
47 replies on “How awake are you?”
Absolutely brilliant, Mauricio. And that’s exactly why this site focuses on the CQ: a site designed to awaken white nationalists who are still sleeping in the Matrix!
I was a ‘level 5’ when I discovered WDH in early 2017.
No other site has awakened me this much so far.
I discovered this site around the same time, and was in the same place.
Discovering this blog was truly a transformative experience.
I would say that I’m also a solid 9
The most incisive and penetrating comment I’ve seen on this blog for the past year. This deserves as wide a circulation as possible. I was stuck on level 5 for many years, before finally throwing away the Christian baggage. Now I’m at level 9.
So penetrating that I am tempted to change the subtitle of this site, from “Love is murdering the white race” (a Linder quote) to something like the title of this entry…
But even if I do that I’d have to link it somehow to this post.
Anti-Christian Paganism is good.
belief in invisible entities is bad. if it’s not a personal relationship, fuk it.
Blood and Soil is the only true religion.
i can touch blood and soil. that’s good. all religions are bad. as they are dogma-based. dogma meaning: rules of some collective game. membership here requires you must agree to our dogmas.. fuk it. nature is the rule.
Well, some Berserks saw themselves as devotees of Odin, and if the Harii as described in Tacitus’ Germania, then it would be safe to assume they were mimicking the Einherjar and thus also saw themselves as members of a personal relationship with Odin.
However, I believe that the comment implies that the ‘paganism’ there is a mere stepping stone on the road to realizing that blood and soil is all that matters. Personally, I do much detest the new atheism that flourishes in contemporary Pro-white/Anti Christian circles but so long as everyone agrees that Christianity and any semblance of Christianity must be stamped out, I suppose that I can tolerate it.
Christian morality* forgive my typo.
I have no doubt that there are indeed many individuals who could be categorised in one of these levels. Buf this list of levels is not complete, since many, many more options are possible.
I am just sticking with a simple variety. To respect the natural existing hierarchy. Nothing else is required.
That means that we can keep technology, correction, that means that we HAVE to keep technology. First of all because it is an inevitable product of our Aryan consiousness, so to supress the development of technology is nothing less than to supress our self expression, and also because that in itself is part of the competiveness, the arms race if you like, that exists in nature between species and races. Human species is not the only species that occupies itself with that. Just look at many insect species.
Blaming technology for what’s wrong today is nothing less than moronic.
So the notion of blood and soil isn’t complete enough as the only true religion. It should include the absolute obligation to never share any acquired knowledge about nature’ s properties and mechanisms, which inevitably result in the existence of technology and eventually industrialisation. It is nothing less than our task to manage it well. All part of growing up so to speak.
I suspect this is the source of many ancient fairy tails and legends about magicians and powerful gods among countless aboriginal populations around the globe which eventually became religions. Just look at all the megalithic structures scattered on every continent which were definitely not built by the current ‘indigenous’ inhabitants of these places. Who did built them then? Probably the people who were regarded by these ‘indigenous’ inhabitants as gods. Of course they were not gods at all, but to the simple stone age minds of the mudpeople they were. Now, why am i telling all this? To give you a clue about how things could be and should be on this planet.
What about level 11? Fuck human race!
I am on level 8
Exterminate the Jew and you won’t have to worry about the other races, things will soon return to the natural order. Jews are the primal force against nature, twisting the world into its present insanely murderous, psychopathic shape where the defective rule.
How do you explain the Mongolian invasion of Europe which never involved Jews?
Arch Stanton has always ignored my argument and question that no monocausalist has responded over the WN forums: How do you explain the mestization of New Spain which never involved Jews?
He won’t reply of course. Like many WNsts, he takes monocausalism dogmatically.
Like Jews, mongols were oriental. The orientals exhibit the same murderous psychopathy as the Jews. Even the most cursory examination of Japanese and Chinese culture will confirm this fact.
However, the one major Jewish proclivity which these other oriental cultures do not exhibit is parasitism. Why? Because they have a homeland that was intentionally denied the Jews to bind their culture.
Forget ancient history, the fact is Jews control the modern world. Anyone failing to demonstrate an awareness of this undeniable fact is either delusional or works for the Jews.
A fire will burn out if not continually supplied with fuel. Jewish fire has been consuming the world since ancient times and has now grown to a major conflagration threatening to consume civilization
The Jewish destruction of western culture would soon die out were it not for the fact they continually fuel its flames with goy cordwood.
Alex Linder is often quoted here, ask him what he thinks about this matter of Jewish domination. Ask him if he agrees with the above statement.
Once again, I am not a white nationalist and never have been. If one allows themselves to be compartmentalized by such foolish terms, they have been compromised. If they actually observe such nonsense, they are fully programmed and controlled. The white race will never recover as long as they allow Jews to box them in with such nonsensical terms.
Recently, Alex said something false on Gab: “government = jews”.
Obviously, he omitted all white traitors. Like most WNsts, libertarian Alex is stagnated in a combination of #4 and #5 above: “White Nationalism is good. Jews are evil. Christianity has been corrupted by Jews”.
Arch, this is just… pathetic. To compare Mongolians to Jews reeks of desperation and knee-jerk reaction. Whites have displayed almost equal amounts of this “murderous psychopathy”. In Goodrich’s Hellstorm, many of the perpetrators were ethnic Europeans. Many were British soldiers. And Jews have more genetic relation to you and I than central Asians.
So even in the face of evidence which shows your ridiculous claims to be false, you still try to weasel your way out of things. Face it: You’ve lost.
So, I ask again: How do you explain the Mongolian invasion of Europe which never involved Jews?
…and how would Arch explain the red-haired Buddha’s elimination of the Aryan caste system which never involved Jews?
Face it: monocausalists have lost.
Well done, Mauricio. You nail it down admirably. I modestly offer this synopsis of the modern history of the White race:
1889 – Advent of the Hero
1920 – The Age of the Heroic commences
1933 – Jewish takeover of America completed / The Flame glows briefly
1943 – Last chance to save Western Civilization ends in defeat.
1945 – The Enemy reigns triumphant
Present – Quietus of the White race
Last hope – Only the best 10% must survive. (All else is inconsequential.)
“Arch Stanton has always ignored my argument and question that no monocausalist has responded over the WN forums: How do you explain the mestization of New Spain which never involved Jews?”
One issue you continually refuse to address is the fact fact if there were no Jews there would be no Christians or Muslims. How can the overwhelming Jewish influence be ignored when from the beginning, Jews were the root cause of Christianity?
Absent Saul/Paul and his deification of Jesus, there would have been no New Spain mestization. It was the very ignorance of this fact that long ago allowed the “Judaeo-Christians” to gain their ascendancy. All three of the Judaic religions are Jewish inventions. Had Jews never existed the problems they created, and still create, in the name of these religions would be non-existent. Yet you maintain Christianity must be addressed first and foremost, before the issue of the Jew – how so?
You were indirectly burned by the Jews’ Christian religion. That burn left an indelible mark upon your psyche that consumes and focuses your views on the subject. Alex Linder was directly burned by the Jew that left the same indelible mark on his psyche. What you have in common is whether directly or indirectly, you were both burned by the Jew.
If I understand your comment correctly, are you now saying that the CQ is ultimately the JQ?
If so, you should appreciate our efforts on this site: as very few WNsts have taken the leap from #5 to #6.
You can use the exact same reasoning to blame literally everything. If not for sexual intercourse, the Jews would never have bred and led to future generations such as the ones that contained Saul of Tarsus.
So it is sexual intercourse, and not Joos, that lead to the invention of Christianity. Maybe we should start murdering people who engage in coitus.
“Maybe we should start murdering people who engage in coitus.”
Easy for you to say, because you would the safe.
“…because you would the safe.”
English isn’t your first language, is it?
“English isn’t your first language, is it?”
No, but I have a rather good command of it. Does that answer your question?
No, you really don’t. Nearly every comment you have typed on this site has been riddled with typos and excessive and irrelevant verbiage, which shows me that you don’t have “a very good command of it”. So, please, and in plain, crystal-clear English this time, ‘aryan son’, what is the meaning of “because you would the safe”?
I shall assume you missed out a “one”, as in if people who have sex are murdered then I would be untouched because I don’t have sex? Is that your point? Because if not, ‘aryan son’, then what exactly is?
I am against Jewish power, and so is everybody else on this blog. I have made such sentiments clear in the past. It was according to Arch Stanton’s context that I am “doing what Hitler did”. I have never once claimed to be emulating Hitler, nor is that something I am trying to do. You can have respect for someone without wanting to copy them, I am so sorry if this is so difficult to understand, ‘aryan son’. So, I suggest that instead of blindly harassing others, seek help, or learn to read.
I fail to see the connection here. How have I shown to you or anybody else that I do not understand context? You clearly don’t. If you did, then you would know that when I say such things as “I am an anti-Semite, so surely, even if I am a Jew, you have to love and respect me, because I do what Hitler did. Why not use your same logic here?”, and “Maybe we should start murdering people who engage in coitus.”
That I am merely using somebody else’s logic against them and that is the context here. I even said that in plain English in the first quotation. I am not literally calling for the deaths of those who have sex nor am I saying that “I am doing what Hitler did”. It is a common tactic used in warfare where one side takes a hold of and uses the other’s superior weapons against them. Assuming that Arch Stanton’s arguments can be seen as superior, of course.
Let me make it clearer for you, ‘aryan son’. Arch Stanton says “Anyone who attacks Jews is worthy of my love, respect, and admiration”. And says that Jesus is worthy of these things because he attacked Jews (according to him, not me). So, by his logic, I deserve these things from him, and it is silly to call me Jewish as an argument against me and at the same time love Jesus. If Jesus attacked Jews, and I am attacking Jews, then why attack me for possibly being Jewish?
Can we please put the whole “doing what Hitler did” behind us. Semantics warfare is better waged by the ladies.
“No, you really don’t ”
Yes I do. And if you even couldn’t deduct from that sentence that ‘the’ should have been ‘be’ than I think I have a better command of the English language than you, despite you being a native speaker. I actually passed the CPE exam. Do you know what that stands for?
And don’t let any typos due to editing before entering make you believe otherwise.
Another reason for regular typos is due to typing on my phone with my huge hands while I am passing time waiting at work. As if typos or excessive and irrelevant verbiage, instead of grammar, tell anything about one’s command or grasp of a language.
Further proof of your poor English language skills is the following;
“Arch Stanton says “Anyone who attacks Jews is worthy of my love, respect, and admiration”. And says that Jesus is worthy of these things because he attacked Jews (according to him, not me). So, by his logic, I deserve these things from him”
which clearly indicate you don’t even know the meaning of the words you write.
OR, ….. or,….. instead of changing the real subject whenever you are confronted with your own clumsy verbiage, you could prove me wrong and elaborate on how exactly you are attacking Jews. A clear question, so why not a clear answer?
No, you really don’t. Just trust me on this one.
How could that even be a sentence? So, your sentence was meant to be “because you would be be safe?” Two “bes”?
It is not my job to correct you on your poor English skills, ‘aryan son’. It is also not my fault that you are extremely hasty and high-strung. Stop blaming others for your own shortcomings.
“And don’t let any typos due to editing before entering make you believe otherwise”
I will. Don’t you understand that it is your responsibility what appears in your own comments? It isn’t my fault that you don’t pay attention to your words. The term is “think before you speak”. I learned that shit when I was 5, before that even.
Lol! The narcissism here is palpable. Yes: Big manly macho-man with big man-hands ‘aryan son’ is too good for computers, it seems. A self-admitted techno-fetishist.
That is exactly what it does. That is literally how language works. I don’t understand why you are attempting a sarcastic remark here.
How? I am making a direct quotation of his. So how do I not understand the meaning of the words I write? What you are desperately trying to say is that you don’t understand the meanings of the words I write, but cannot because of your poor English.
More irrelevant verbosity. Why two “ors”, one comma, and five points after each?
Tell me, because I am curious: How have I changed the subject here? Me making reference to your poor English was a tiny part of my entire comment. So, it is you who is changing the subject, ‘aryan son’, not me. Not a single part of this irrelevant waffle you have typed has actually anything to do with what I have said.
Sorry, that is not for me to do. I cannot “prove myself wrong” because it is impossible to prove a negative. This is a basic part of debating in the English language, a language which you have a very feminine grasp on. It is for you to prove to me that your arguments can stand the test of time.
And as for attacking Jews, very simple:
I, Jack Halliday, call for the deaths of every single Jew on the planet called Earth.
Happy now, ‘aryan son’?
The white race will never recover as long as they allow Jews to box them in with such nonsensical terms.
1. the xtian malware installed in early childhood detoothes the majority of its victims. (if personal stats are evidence of a norm: 7 siblings with the xtian malware, from birth. 1/6 uninstalled it — partially at least enuf to raise my middle finger to the sky and tell xtianity’s hallowed Holy Spirt to goto hell, thus committing their fuking impardonable sin.) all my siblings are weaklings, undermensches. in their eyes, israel and jews are above reproach. wtf!?)
2. whitie patronizes the hell out of jew businesses and jew shit products. what effect would whities enmasse
– not ingesting hollywood products
– not buying mortgage debt
– not owning stock in NYSE – listed public corporations,
– not sending their precious children off to the public education prisons for jew-indoctrinations
– not owning/ not watching tee bee
have on jew industries? likely none. we’re a drop in the big global bucket. as can be seen with MSM embracing a blackie as their new big advertising market. (when i thought niggers had little to no expendable income? (where the fuk is my misperception? oh yes, jewie is genius at selling bad debt in endlessly creative ways.)
Yes: and I would add that the reductionists who say that the Jewish problem ‘encompasses’ the Christian Problem (you can also visualize it with a Venn diagram with a smaller CP circle inside the larger JP circle) should, in sound logic, see the West’s Darkest Hour as an anti-Semite site (albeit one fousing in a problem that few WNsts can see).
“If I understand your comment correctly, are you now saying that the CQ is ultimately the JQ?”
No, I am not saying that now, I have been trying to tell you that all along, although you are putting the Christian cart before the Jewish horse pulling it along its path of destruction.
I see no need to support the Jews’ “Agenda 21” or “Georgia Stone,” allegedly created by one “Robert C. Christian,” injunction to depopulate the world. As I said, eliminate the Jew and, minus Jewish influence, these problems along with their minority populations will sort themselves out.
As Alex said in his original VNN masthead – “No Jews just right.”
Cesar I have always appreciated your efforts and have said so many times. You are performing an invaluable service by publishing profound, long ignored, works illuminating and exposing the religious myths.
As I have said, we are heading towards the same end by different paths. I want to end Christianity by demythologizing Jesus. Remove the worshiped deity, destroy the religion. However, my approach exposes the Jew as the root cause of Jesus’ mission.
You on the other hand, are taking the traditional path of denying the deity, an approach that has obviously had no effect on Christianity while failing to expose the Jews’ role. Christianity began as one more story of internecine rivalry between Jewish factions struggling for power and using the goy to further their power mad goals. It’s the same story today, as it was in ancient times. Jews using their Christian goy to achieve their goals.
Ironically the very works of the ancients you publish on this subject verify this approach does not work, as there are more Christians today than ever before. If repeated attempts fail to accomplish ones goals, one should try another approach.
So you’re trying to solve the Christian Problem with the Jesus of your novel? This strongly reminds me what S. Ranch said about you earlier in this month (‘It seems strange to me that Arch Stanton professes to love him while at the same time acknowledging that he was a Jewish supremacist who despised white people. That’s the ultimate conclusion of Judaism indeed!’). S. Ranch, as you know, is paraphrasing Nietzsche’s The Antichrist (‘Christians can think of themselves as anti-Jewish without understanding that they are the ultimate conclusion of Judaism’).
As to the diagram I used in this thread I believe the opposite: that the CQ (i.e., the AQ) ‘encompasses’ the JQ. It all has to do with white sins and gullibility before the Semitic lies: Codreanu ’s swamps and the invading mosquitoes. I have criticised Greg Johnson heavily in this site, but I would recommend your studying carefully what he said about dogmatic monocausalism: here.
“‘It seems strange to me that Arch Stanton professes to love him while at the same time acknowledging that he was a Jewish supremacist who despised white people.”
How does one figure Jesus was a “supremacist?” Mark 12:17 quotes Jesus as saying Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.This is not the view of a “supremacist.” Where do you see a so called white supremacist saying render unto Jews that which the Jews.
Jesus was what every white nationalist professes to be, i.e. someone who loves his race and wants them free from Jewish oppression. His sole concern was for his people and issues that did not pertain to them was of no concern to him that is why he said in Matthew –
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”(Matthew 10:5-6)
But Jesus answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.Matthew 15:23
I love Jesus for the same reason Jews hate have maintained vitriolic hatred for the man for more than two thousand years, i.e. he did the same thing Hitler did, he attacked the elite Jews’ oppressive economic system and brought it down. Jesus’ sacrifice led to the destruction of the Temple.
Anyone that attacks the Jews is deserving of my admiration and those that are successful are worthy of love, respect and admiration for their efforts. The fact that both Hitler and Jesus did this at the cost of their own lives makes it all this more so.
As for Jack Halliday, did he not admit he was a Jew? Need I say more?
“How does one figure Jesus was a “supremacist?””
The testimony of the NT is that he takes the typical attitude of a Jewish rabbi toward non-Jews, i.e., he considers them “dogs”. Cf. Mark 7:24-30 where the Prince of Peace sadistically forces a white woman to say she is one before he will grant her a miracle.
Also see John 4, where Jesus is quite clear that “salvation is of the Jews”, and non-Jews don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to religion. Jesus says Jews are God’s favorites, others aren’t — the very definition of supremacism. The chapter also contradicts your idée fixe that Jesus came only for the Jews, since the Samaritan woman to whom he is speaking isn’t a Jew, and yet he in effect says he comes for her too.
> ‘As for Jack Halliday, did he not admit he was a Jew? Need I say more?’
In my above words (‘I have criticised Greg Johnson heavily in this site, but I would recommend your studying carefully what he said about dogmatic monocausalism: here’) I linked specifically to an article of mine that has received no comments.
I linked to it precisely as a prophylactic measure for you to avoid making unfounded accusations in this site (in another thread you also said that S. Ranch might be Jewish).
I really believe that you should take a break and read that entry carefully. You are supposing that Jack is non-gentile only because of a sarcastic remark he did months ago, something that would not be accepted in a courtroom, not even in Hollywood:
“As for Jack Halliday, did he not admit he was a Jew? Need I say more?”
In other words, you know that your “arguments” are erroneous and shallow in thought so you resort to lies and slander instead. This is exactly what you blame Jews for; what does it say about you?
Tell me: I am an anti-Semite, so surely, even if I am a Jew, you have to love and respect me, because I do what Hitler did. Why not use your same logic here?
Oh, that’s right, thinking properly is beyond you. So I ask again: How do you explain the Mongolian invasion of Europe which never involved Jews?
” I do what Hitler did ”
It is very rare one can read a statement of this monumental magnitude of delusion.
I am asking everybody here, am I wrong in my assessment? Or is there anyone here present who actually thinks that Jack Halliday does what Hitler did? Cesar, …… anyone?
Ever heard of context? Do you know what the context here is?
The context is Arch Stanton saying that Jesus did what Hitler did, you did you forget that part? Why are you wasting my time and not his?
He specifically says “he did the same thing Hitler did, he attacked the elite Jews’ oppressive economic system..”
So by his very definition, I am doing what Hitler did. I am not literally saying that “I am doing what Hitler did”. You are either autistic or you need to learn to read.
And don’t call for peoples’ help, it is shameful.
” … he attacked the elite Jews’ oppressive economic system..”
So by his very definition, I am doing what Hitler did. ”
Really? Well, please elaborate then on how you, Jack Halliday, are attacking jews’ oppressive economic system.
And then he asks me if I’ve ever heard of context.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Take a look at this – https://www.darkmoon.me/2018/the-decline-and-fall-of-merrie-england/ – Is this the work of Christians or Jews?
Is Teresa May and the houses of parliament staffed with Christians or Jews and their psychopathic sycophants? Are Angela Merkle and Emmanuel Macron Christian – or Jewish cocksuckers? Was Tony Blair a Christian – or a Jewish cocksucker? How many Christian politicians can you count in the American political system versus how many Jews?
The world has gone mad. White civilization is going down in flames. Whites are being exterminated in every country in the world due to a preponderance of anti-white political policy. Are these “genocidal” policies those of Christians or Jews?
Again I ask, was not Christianity itself the work of Jews? Did not Jack Halliday openly admit he is a Jew? And you worry about Christians?
Did you miss my previous comment in this thread?
Imho, there is only one battle – that between Christianity and Social Darwinism. Individualism is death, whereas the only path to life is through in-group altruism and out-group exterminationism.
Can a civilized nation exist without the effeminating justice system? And can a savage, honourable nation live in stone cities and write books? This seems to be my only ideal…
But I do like Mauricio’s steps. You’re thinking as a European. In America things are different.
I still remember my first baby steps in Counter-Jihad after I was a normie. As a secular humanist then, I even defended Christianity because Counter-Jihadists like Robert Spencer defended it!
Normies need stepping stones.
I am going to divert here and do something I have never done before, address issues concerning a specific individual. Regarding Jack Halliday’s racial heritage, let’s take another look at his response:
“Don’t insult my intelligence. I understood your ridiculous and know-it-all crap the first time. What happened to you? You always struck me as intelligent and forthright. If you were talking to me in real life the way you are now, I would break your occipital bones at the very least. So, is this the same Arch Stanton? I highly doubt it. The one I am thinking of wasn’t an obnoxious little prick, and acting like an adult when losing an argument. P.S You are correct – I am a Jew.” – Jack Halliday
This admission would not be admissible in a court of law? Do you think a judge would find it admissible if one stood up and proclaimed – “And by the way, I’m a neo-Nadzee, racist bigot” or “Did I mention I’m a Hezbollah terrorist?” Ya think such an admission might be enough to convict? Yet when a Jew admits his background, it is nothing more than a sarcastic comment, a forgivable joke, inadmissible in a court of law?
Let us examine the evidence for Jack Halliday’s admission of racial heritage. Note Halliday’s threatening, ad hominem attack directed at my person in the above, as opposed to addressing the content of my comment. This is among the most classic of Jew techniques for misdirecting arguments for which they have no hard facts, evidence or answers.
Here it is again, “Of course. Many say he (Linder) looks Jewish and I think he does in many ways. However, these people are Christians 9 times out of ten. To them, only a filthy Kike could think ill of the baby Jesus. I will say that Linder is very physically un-American.” – Jack Halliday.
Note the accusatorial inference that Linder is a Jew. Yet another classic Jew trick, discrediting the individual by claiming or inferring he is the enemy of the people he represents. Note also the projection of the attacker’s personality on the opponent, another classic Jewish trick for diffusing an argument. I have been repeatedly cast as “losing the argument” when no such proof exists. This is yet another classic mark of the Jew, arbitrarily deciding the outcome and declaring themselves the winner before any evidence for their claim is available. Note also the repeated, puerile, sexual and scatological references.
”If you think about it, the Constitution will come in handy when the shipments of toilet paper run out.” – Jack Halliday
By the way, Alex, VNN and myself go back a ways – http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/category/arch-stanton/page/4/
Here’s a Halliday jaw dropper – “I am actually 16 years old, believe it or not.” – Jack Halliday.
I don’t believe it. Perhaps this is yet another sarcasm for which Halliday is apparently famous. Of course, this would provide a perfect excuse for the rest of the pedophilic overtones in his comment, to wit:
“I was speaking to a cousin of mine who is about 40 years old (he suffers from a Peter Pan complex). I spoke to a 15 year old beautiful redhead when she visited his house (to play with his son and daughter’s dog, who are 11 and 6 respectively). She was very well-spoken and polite. She was also very modest in what she wore.
“I told my older cousin that I really like her, and I would like to go out with her properly. He failed to hide his disdain at my remark, and said that it is illegal for me to be with her. You see, in the States, their are some areas where I think you can have intercourse as young as 14 – Am I talking shit? In Britain, both parties have to be exactly 16 or over. If a 16 year old has intercourse with a 15 year old, it is jail time for the elder.
“So, when some other cousins of mine found out, despite their age, they tried to say that there was something wrong with me, like the written law applies to Human instinct as well. They are just too stupid to realise that this isn’t having good effects on my mental state. So, I just steer clear of those people, and don’t care if they are family.
“and I won’t deny arousal as a result of seeing it but it simultaneously repulses me.” (secondary comment)
“This is a feeling natural to every heterosexual man. Why do you think porn in this sphere is so popular? Men are voyeurs by nature: We are designed to be aroused when confronted with a sensual body. So, as a result we love female “choreography”. However, men don’t like seeing another man have sex with an attractive woman, as this creates strong envy and wrath as the man is stealing our prize (unless your a eunuch bitch, of course).
“In “Lesbianism”, not only is such female “choreography” doubled, but the man is gone, thus relieving us of any envy. This proves to be the best aphrodisiac for Western men.
“Your impulsivity added to your disgust is the same feelings I get when viewing this filth. I also feel similar when hearing stories of rape. It is not something to be controlled and you just have to come to terms with it. That is the only advice I can give. Look at my conversation with Cesar earlier in this thread to understand this “arousal plus disgust” that we are speaking of, and how it relates to myself. I might help you out – I am not sure.
“and if I were ever with a girl I truly loved and found her to be engaging with intercourse with another woman I know for a fact she probably wouldn’t survive the beating I’d administer as a result. (secondary quote)
“Indeed. A woman who you are in a relationship with found being in bed with another woman can be roughly translated into: “You are not man enough for me. She gives me more pleasure than your dick does”.
“So, yes, I would beat the shit out of her, and I am not a violent person, either.”
Really now, we are to believe Halliday’s comments are the product of a sixteen year old mind? Beyond their obvious puerile nature, isn’t that a bit of a stretch?
“The Jews did not “outlaw” the idea – Such a thing is impossible.” – Jack Halliday
Outlawing ideas is impossible? Tell that to Ernst Zundel, Ursula Haverbeck, Jez Turner, David Irving, Arthur Topham, Allison Chabloz, David Duke, et al; all those presently rotting in jail or who Jews’ have imprisoned in the past for nothing more than their ideas, “hate speech” as it were.
“It is very little fault of the Jews for the fact that Aryans are stupid and cowardly.” – Jack Halliday
“The fact that one half of the White Race is too stupid and the other half too cowardly is not something I want to entirely blame the Jews for.” – Jack Halliday
Ahhh! Icing on the yarmulke, exonerating the Jew from culpability for their actions. You can’t blame the Jew, so why not try the Christians.
My comment about boycotting Israel “So why is Israel the only country singled out for such honors?” – Arch Stanton
“Jewish power.” – Jack Halliday.
How can one possibly miss the chutzpatic arrogance of the bragging Jew in this reply? Of course, this will no doubt be accepted as another sarcastic joke, ironically spotlighting the truth.
“Question: How much do you hate the Police? I am genuinely curious. If your house is ransacked, would you find it necessary to call the Police?” – Jack Halliday
Once again a classic Jew trick, the loaded question. Not “do you” but “how much,” inferring hatred for the police as a foregone conclusion.
“What about this Jewish style, sexual gem? “Cesar, I am going to confess something to you for the world to see: At about the age of 14, I developed a ‘rape paraphilia’. Essentially, I am sexually aroused primarily through the fantasies of the rape of women and young girls. I guarantee you this developed due to the psychological abuse from other students that was taking place at my School. It is typical of the mind to develop such forms of sadism when exposed to this type of environment.” – Jack Halliday
Note the classic Jewish claim of victimization? I’m not to blame, it is the people that made me like this who are to blame.
Here it is again – “So, when some other cousins of mine found out, despite their age, they tried to say that there was something wrong with me, like the written law applies to Human instinct as well.” [ . . . ] “They are just too stupid to realize that this isn’t having good effects on my mental state.” – Jack Halliday
The victim mentality, “rape paraphilia,” “sadism,” loaded questions, threats, ad hominem attacks, puerile interjections from a sixteen year old lusting after a “15 year old beautiful redhead” he fantasizes about raping?
I look at Halliday’s responses and ask could a sixteen year old produce such responses? Ya Sure you betcha! There is nothing Jewish about any of this. Obviously, Jack Halliday is the average 16 year old, white, goy-boy. But of course, Halliday could always be another Einstein.
I could go on, but if at this point one cannot see the Jew in all this, then one is completely blind to the Jew’s presence.
Arch: I did not read your comment beyond your quotation—
—for the simple reason that you completely ignored my point above with embedding that clip from Presumed Innocent.
You are behaving like the prosecutors of that film: unable to distinguish between sarcasm and outright confession of murder (have you watched that Harrison Ford film?).
Let me ask you this very seriously: Did you read the article that quotes Greg Johnson, linked above, about the dangers in WN of claiming that commenter X must be Jew?
If not, I must ask you in all seriousness to read it NOW.
I am closing this thread because it has been diverted to unexpected waters.
Those who want to reply can do it in the article I’ll post tonight: ‘On accusing WDH commenters of being Jews’.