Two years ago my first cousin, the one I got along with the most in the 1980s, killed his teenage daughter and then hanged himself. As far as I know, he was exasperated by the very aggressive feminism that reigned at home, and it is rumoured that in the posthumous letter he left he said that he also planned to dispatch his wife (who was absent on the day of the two deaths).
The cold war against the Aryan race is becoming hot. The first step in white genocide will be to remove the police. If that were to be implemented, the only line of defence that the Americans would have are their firearms. Once Americans start using their weapons defensively in their homes that will be considered racism. After Trump, someone like AOC will try to confiscate the guns of right-wingers to leave them at the mercy of BLM. The ball is in their court: either they will continue to behave like lambs in the slaughterhouse or like the characters of The Turner Diaries.
Since WordPress software will automatically close the vaccine discussion thread this day, anyone interested in answering Peter can do so here.
5 replies on “Three themes”
How White is/was your late cousin’s wife?
Was this family tragedy a case of racial justice, in which a Med bred with an Aztec hybrid, and fell victim to their inherent unstable, destructive psychoclass?
As for RaHoWa, I imagine Murican CQ-ignorers and Jew-obeyers who visit this site will think “the USA, not stopping the killing of Whites? That can’t happen. And even if it does, social media would just report the murders, then the UN, or the overseas NATO would do something about this.”
Yeah, just like they stopped thousands of rapes and murders by Jihadi migrants – by lighting candles and apologizing.
Anyone who believes a bunch of youtubers would somehow open up a second front (Europe) in a race war is either high on Hopium, or hasn’t been paying attention for years. Most normies, Murican or European, don’t even know nor care that there are hot civil wars taking place in the world right now – South Africa among them.
You’re on your own, Murican. No one is coming to save you.
As for Vaccines, I also made up my mind about them.
It’s an incredible scientific breakthrough, and it did save a lot of Whites (and non-Whites) since the days of Pasteur.
And sure, even today, when you get vaccinated, that cocktail in the syringe can give you immunity to X,Y, and Z diseases for many years.
But what else is in that syringe?
I don’t trust the system. I think that, if the system has the technology to poison, tranquilize and ‘dumbify’ it’s population without repercussions – it will use it.
I can only speculate on the multiple subversive uses of the vaccine cocktail – and this may be paranoia on my part – but my opinion is that, vaccines, in general, were once good for Whites, until the Third Reich was destroyed.
Today, the trusted institution of vaccination has probably been hijacked, and is being used as an open attack-vector of the anti-White system. One would do well to be highly suspicious of vaccines, especially in Jewmerica.
We have survived for millenia without vaccines. It was a tool created to facilitate human existence in densely populated cities.
Anyway, my stance of refusal to get vaccinated will be put to the test soon, when the mandatory Covid-19 vaccines arrive later this year (or 2021).
If that’s true, academic webzines like TOO or CC (I don’t trust Unz Review, as he believes in JFK conspiracy theories) will sooner or later post articles exposing the post-3rd Reich vaccine scandal in the US. But as today the only biological pseudoscience that I see trying to control the population is psychiatry.
In any case, what matters is Christian morality: what is killing whites. Today, for example, Richard Spencer said that Christopher Columbus committed crimes by today’s standards, and that it is ridiculous to use today’s standards to judge a guy from the 16th century (I didn’t write down the exact second of this podcast).
The problem is that he should say that what Columbus did we must do again, since the revaluation of Xtian values means seeing the genocide of non-whites as something noble. But again, white nationalists are light years away from such wisdom.
P.S. Let’s not confuse vaccine sceptics with the nutcases (for a brief article about the difference see e.g., here).
I’m also a bit hesitant in vaccines but I have taken them, but as a baby? I’m not sure.
I haven’t studied into it at all, except a little bit of the debates etc.
My mother is a veterinarian which naturally involves using some vaccines and quite frankly she’s the best veterinarian I’ve seen, but she also uses biologically fit substances, like let’s say.. yogurt, alcohol, buttermilk, and other that heal the body in natural ways rather than using vaccines first, but still used.
My sister is in high vaccination right because of the problems with her bowels, so far the observations is that her hair has been falling out because of one of the drugs, the doctors did state that it would happen. I’ll continue to see if in long-term it helped her.
But what I make of it none clearer, but I’m on board with Mauricio.
Opinions should be based on facts, not on opinions (or beliefs, as is the case of all those pseudosciences debunked in The Skeptical Inquirer).
Now to present my thoughts on what has been discussed here about vaccines.
With respect to the article Cesar linked, I more or less hold the “irrational” beliefs outlined in the beginning of the piece, so that makes me a nutter by Cesar’s definition, if I understand correctly. The article also fails to cite any sources, and makes various arguments that I’ve seen debunked many times. Also, as far as I’m concerned the whole apparatus of “Skeptical” websites and societies, at least today, doesn’t exist to promote scientific thinking, only to defend the status quo, whatever it might be-and I suspect the existence of paid shills, too (most Skeptics are very liberal aswell), otherwise they would criticize Psychiatry, which they don’t. See a website called theethicalskeptic.com for a detailed critique of the “Skeptic” establishment (also, the Ethical Skeptic Twitter feed is a great place to look for detailed, up-to-date information dispelling the Covid19 narrative). What started with skepticism of vaccines in my case culminated in the conclusion that vaccination should be abolished, so I don’t hold any middle-ground, which I regard as false balance. Unlike many vaccine critics I don’t object to being described as an Anti-vaxxer, which is what I literally am. In fact, it irks we when Vaccine critics stipulate that they aren’t Anti-vaxxers because they just believe in freedom of choice, often labelling themselves as such (“pro-choice”). It irks me because children are the main target of vaccination, and giving a choice to their parents to subject them to vaccines is a violation of their rights (I could accept the argument that vaccination should be limited to freely consenting adults, even if that’s too libertarian for my liking. However, in such a paradigm the business of vaccination wouldn’t survive anyway, it never has or will survive the “free market” but relies on fraud, government subsidies and various degrees of coercion to survive at all). Others will apparently believe in the concept of vaccination but disagree with certain details, e.g. that the current schedules are too aggressive, or what have you.
Which will bring us to Mauricio’s claim that vaccines were “once good”, but that the practice subsequently became corrupted, which is a concept that I’ve seen stated elsewhere numerous times.
But first to address what Cesar has said. He admitted that he didn’t have a neutral attitude toward vaccine hesitancy, due to his conviction that “by refusing to vaccinate, (antivaxxers) undermine the herds immunity”. This type of argument is exactly what the vaccination industry relies on as an excuse to disparage open debate in the mainstream media and in academia, which is usually prohibited (qualified anti-vaccine advocates are willing to publically debate their position and vaccine promoters almost always refuse to oblige, and anti-vaxxers are subjected to significant censorship online e.g. Google search results; and to avoid doing scientific safety studies comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. They argue that depriving children of vaccines to use as a control would be unethical and indeed, such studies would be declined ethical approval. But this is blatant circular reasoning; if gold-standard science hasn’t established the safety/efficacy of vaccines in the first place because it was prohibited, then how do they know it would harm children to deny them vaccines? Cesar’s position seems to be an application of the precautionary principle, his belief clearly being that if anti-vaxxers had their way, it would cause harm/damage society. Obviously, this is in and of itself an assertion of the efficacy of vaccination, which is under dispute. In particular it’s a promotion of the theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity. In answer to that I’ll mention a few sources which present an overview debunking that concept.
*Article “Challenging what you’ve heard about herd immunity” published on website “Texans for Vaccine choice”.
*Article “Vaccination: Is it time to pull the wool from your eyes” published on website “fearlessparent.org”
*YouTube Channel “Safe and effective” video entitled “Scientist Explains Herd Immunity”.
*YouTube channel “LarryCook333” video entitled “Vaccination Destroys Natural Herd Immunity and Weakens The Population”.
It should be pointed out that prejudice against vaccinating ones children is based on a valid application of the precautionary principle; vaccination involves piercing the skin and injecting foreign materials into the body, which entails a risk of harm, even if the myriad possible harms were as yet unknown.
I’ve mentioned that the Vaccination business wouldn’t survive outside of a corrupt social fabric, i.e. Crony Capitalism. So I would surmise that in a society which was true to the tenets of National Socialist ideology, vaccination would not survive. As was the case with biological Psychiatry the NAZI regime didn’t perceive any problem with vaccination during its tenure so we can only guess what might have transpired with these issues had they won the war, etc.
As far society tolerating Vaccination, I would also surmise that in terms of the psychogenic development of society, a fully advanced “Psychoclass” wouldn’t tolerate vaccination. I see Vaccination as a collorary of “poisonous pedagogy”, as babies, toddlers and children are ritualistically subjected to pain and discomfort (entailing the injecting into their bodies of pathogenic substances), and even the possibility of illness, injury and death, and this is done to them “for their own good”. One might even be able to surmise that vaccination was a type of child-abusing social ritual in psychohistorical terms, and that paranoia over the supposed threat posed by unvaccinated children constitutes a “group fantasy” of sorts, that one could perform a DeMause-style study about (incidentally, I’ve just learned that he died in April). Since it’s (grudgingly) admitted that a certain (allegedly very small) number of children will die (or be seriously injured) from vaccination, but that this is necessary to achieve a hypothetical greater good, can’t we make a comparison with child sacrifice? But I digress…
To quote the famous Naturopath of the early 20th century, Herbert Shelton, “This criminal practice will end as soon as parents develop sufficient interest in the welfare of their children. At present parents offer up their children on the altars of the smallpox goddess, because commercial ghouls demand it, and hope that the children will not be greatly injured. If a child is invalided for life or is killed, the parents meekly accept the lying excuses of the scoundrels who maim and murder children for money, cry a little, and return to their movies and joy rides”.
Now to what Mauricio said. Were Vaccines once beneficial? I would assume that the platitudinous statements that they were “an incredible scientific breakrough” that “saved many lives” are the result of the cultural conditioning that most people people experience throughout their lives, than any serious study (I would ask, “name one life that was saved?”). Reading my original comment (that Cesar links to) might clarify a few things, and I’ll add that the more plausible explanation for the reduction in infectious illness mortality in the last century or two would be the improvement in living conditions, i.e water sanitation, better city planning/spatial distribution, waste removal and sewerage infrastructure, indoor plumbing, better availability of food and reduction in poverty and malnutrition, and so on. Indeed, the big lie is that Vaccination, rather than those factors, is responsible for improved lifespans. The death rate from various diseases was declining before Vaccination programs were rolled out, and some diseases were virtually eradicated without any vaccines e.g. Scarlet fever.
If anything, the further back in the past, the more liable vaccines were to cause overt injuries, which may be relatively rare today (although it becomes more common as the schedule becomes more aggressive-the USA has the most aggressive schedule in the whole world, as well as the highest infant mortality in the developed world-go figure), but the convergence of evidence today suggests that vaccination increases the susceptibility to various degenerative diseases (what we might call latent injuries); Cancer, developmental disabilities i.e Autism (in fact Leo Kanner, who first described infantile Autism in 1943, described cases where the onset of Autism was apparently just after vaccination; so much for the lie that the Autism connection is confined to one “fraudulent” research paper from Andrew Wakefield circa 1998), and especially the various Autoimmune diseases, including allergies.
Vaccine promoters vacillate between claiming that opposition to vaccines is a recent phenomenon (they sometimes even claim that it originates with Andrew Wakefields MMR paper circa 1998!), and acknowledging that opposition to Vaccination has a long history, though they don’t have a unified position on wether the skepticism of the past was warranted or not; nevertheless it is frequently claimed that the skepticism of the 19th century was rooted in irrationality (despite the eminence of the skeptics). That said, those who acknowledge that the skeptics of yesteryear had a point, fail to specify in what timeframe vaccination became a legitimately scientific practice, and truly safe and effective.
If Cesar wanted to know of a specific vaccine scandal representing the turning point of a downward trend, I would point out the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, signed by Ronald Reagan, which removed liability from vaccine manufacturers.
See: “NVCIA: The legislation that changed everything-conflicts of interest undermine children’s health: part 2 [childrenshealthdefence.org]
So to finally address Mauricio’s claim, here are some quotations from medical experts (and others) circa the early 20th and late 19th centuries which bear a striking resemblance to the observations still being made to this day:
“In 1926, 130 members of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce cancelled their trip to Mexico because vaccination was required as a precedent to entrance. Nearly a 100 medical men, at a conference in Dallas, went to Mexico, after they obtained permission to enter without being vaccinated. Think this over before you submit your child to this evil and superstitious rite.”
Mahatma Gandhi ca. 1921:
“Vaccination is a barbarous practice, and it is one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time, not to be found even among the so-called savage races of the world. It’s supporters are not content with its adoption by those who have no objection to it, but seek to impose it with the aid of penal laws and rigorous punishments on all people alike”.
“Several of the most thoughtful men in England have laboriously investigated the manifold evils of vaccination, and an Anti-Vaccination Society has also been formed there. The members of this society have declared open war against vaccination, and many have even gone to gaol for this cause”.
Dr. J.J. Garth Wilkinson, testimony to British house if commons ca. 1871:
“I have vaccinated to within the last five years without thinking about it. Vaccination is so entirely secumdem artem, the large majority cannot think about it. We are continually coming upon venerable fallacies; but on this question prestige and interest prevent investigation. Six positive cases are worth 10,000 negatives, which go for nothing”.
Francis Newman, emeritus Professor Oxford, ca. 1881:
“The doctors who advise vaccination have no right to be listened to with deference; for they have been guilty of monstrous and deadly blunders. A quarter of a century back they rebuked and scoffed at those–some of the graduates in medicine–who informed them that vaccination may propagate, and has propagated, any or every disease that is in the blood. To the last minute they hardened themselves against conviction, and when unable any longer to deny it, they showed no humility, no confession of error, no abashment”.
Dr. Charles Creighton (England), ca. 1889:
“The anti-vaccinists are those who have found some motive for scrutinizing the evidence, generally the very human motive of vaccinal injuries or fatalities in their own families or in those of their neighbours. Whatever their motive, they have scrutinized the evidence to some purpose; they have mastered nearly the whole case; they have knocked the bottom out of a grotesque superstition. The public at large cannot believe that a great profession should have been so perseveringly in the wrong”.
Walter Hadwen, J.P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., Etc
(Gold Medalist in Medicine and in Surgery) ca. 1889:
“One is constantly told that this is purely a medical question, and that if I want to air it I should discuss it before a medical audience or by letters in the medical papers. Those who say that know what is the treatment medical anti-vaccinists receive in the journals in question. But it is not a purely medical question. It is one of observation, of history and of statistics, and any intelligent layman can understand it as well as a medical man. It is a mere superstitious creed, and needs no professional knowledge to grasp it. And what is more, I can say from what I have learned in experience that intelligent, thoughtful and studious anti-vaccinators know more about this subject than the majority of the medical men of to-day(…)”.
Professor Alexander Wilder, M.D., editor of the New York Medical Tribune, approx. 1880:
“Vaccination is physiologically and morally wrong, and its advocates are inherently conscious of it, or else they would trust to argument and conviction”.
Dr. John W Hodge (USA) ca. 1902:
“A bold attempt has recently been made by a representative of the self-styled “regular” profession to place upon our statute books a compulsory vaccination measure, the provisions of which mark a height of brazen effrontery which medical despotism has never before reached in the Empire State(…)”.
Dr. James Martin Peebles (USA), M.A., PhD, ca. 1913:
“The vaccination practice, pushed to the front on all occasions by the medical profession, and through political connivance made compulsory by the state, has not only become the chief menace and gravest danger to the health of the rising generation, but likewise the crowning outrage upon the personal liberty of the American citizen”.
Dr. George Starr White (USA), ca. 1918:
“The publication of Dr. Creighton’s [Encyclopaedia Brittanica] article caused Prof. Edgar M. Crookshank, bacteriologist of King’s College, to make an independent study of vaccination on the scientific side, to see whether Dr. Creighton’s conclusions (which had been based on statistics) could not be assailed on that side. The result was the two ponderous volumes, “The History and Pathology of Vaccination,” in which he shows the practice to be uncertain, unscientific and dangerous”.
Dr. William Howard Hay (USA) ca. 1937:
“It is now 30 years since I have been confining myself to the treatment of chronic diseases. During those 30 years I have run against so many histories of little children who had never seen a sick day until they were vaccinated and who, in the several years that have followed, have never seen a well day since. I couldn’t put my finger on the disease they have. They just weren’t strong. Their resistance was gone. They were perfectly well before they were vaccinated. They have never been well since”.
“The general public are not aware; the householders of the land have not given this subject that attention which, as parents and guardians of little children, it is their solemn duty to do. I send forth this book to open their eyes, to rouse their conscience, and to discover to them a cruel and insidious enemy where they have been cajoled into the belief they have a friend”.
-Vaccination a Curse and a Menace to Personal Liberty: With Statistics Showing Its Dangers and Criminality
I could go on, but that more than suffices to make my point.
Hopefully my information can serve as the impetus for a paradigm shift on this issue.