Monthly Archives: April 2008

The return of patriarchy? Hell yes!!!

White males, those superior beings, who have given the world almost all its greatest innovations and artistic masterpieces (as Charles Murray’s book ‘Human accomplishment’ details), have also made some of the world’s biggest mistakes. I have come to the realization that giving women suffrage has probably been one of them.

Even though, after making all those institutional, scientific and technological innovations, that made the Western world the most successful and prosperous part of the world in the previous centuries, our civilization has been able to afford cultural irrationality on a vast scale, I’m afraid the time has come to realize that the situation has been growing too bad for the continuing prosperity of the Western world — if we don’t make some radical changes like strip women off their voting rights as soon as possible before the Western civilization is already off the cliff.

To make my case, I note that John Lott’s research has revealed, that it seems women’s suffrage has been a major contributor to the growth of government and the erosion of individual responsibility and freedom — the pillars that allowed Western prosperity. And I, however much I hate to say it aloud (ok, I don’t hate saying it that much!), think women are for big government mainly because they are less intelligent than men on average and there are very few really smart women (see for example these pages I, II, III; in short adult women have up to around 5 points lower IQs than men on average and their IQ variance also seems to be lower).

This intelligence gap explains quite well why it is generally better to allow males to make most of the decisions and why it is generally bad to allow women control as much (let alone more!) resources as men do; it also explains why non-patriarchal societies have not been particularly successful in the longer term during the history of the world. Males may make serious mistakes, but still women tend to make even worse mistakes when they make the decisions. Of course this is not always immediately obvious as lower intelligence tends to lead to decisions that are reasonably good in the short-term but are quite suboptimal, even fatal, in the longer term. Thus women are often able to fool themselves into thinking they are the smart ones after gaining some short term advantages and they rarely have the intelligence to realize that the troubles they face later on are due to their own previous shortsightedness. Instead they often blame white males! Who actually are more often trying to do what’s good for not only themselves but also the society as the whole and humanity’s future while women themselves have been trying to live like little princesses — shopping like hell (etc.) while leeching off the wealth white males have made possible and caring little about how to actually make the society better.

I would need to research the issue more, but I have noted that it seems that although the establishment has generally been trying to suppress research that makes it clear women are on average less intelligent than men and this is due to biological factors, for example the Jewish propaganda machine has been targeting mainly white women probably because the Jewish intellectuals have long known about the sex differences and thus realized it is more efficient to try to fool women than to try to fool men when they promote race-mixing and other harmful things that may lead to the destruction of the white race (and after white women have been fooled into entering mixed-race relations white males have no alternatives but to do the same if they want to propagate their genes). I’m not yet sure if the Jews were actually also largely responsible for women’s suffrage in the first place as they might have long ago realized doing that might well lead to the downfall of the white race.

In addition I might also say I think that the fact that women are less intelligent explains why women tend to be more religious than men and why they support for example mass immigration and foreign aid more often than men. It all comes down to women’s general thoughtlessness and incapacity for thinking about the long term consequences of their actions in a rational scientific way!

Conclusion: it is time to put men (and importantly not those men who women think are the best choices) back in charge of the Western civilization. Else, we may well be about to see how the world collapses.

Report This Post

On my ideological connections

Recently I’ve been spending a little time exploring the ideas of some paleoconservative thinkers. I’ve found that I have quite a lot in common with some people like Patrick J. Buchanan. The Wikipedia entry on Paleoconservatism begins with the following:

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian[1] right wing movement based in the United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.[2] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as “the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.”[3] Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.[4]

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, U.S. funding of Israeli military actions, foreign wars, and welfare.[2] They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the therapeutic managerial state,[5] the welfare-warfare state[6] or polite totalitarianism.

I obviously don’t have that much respect for religiosity as I’m more of an Illuminati type myself and I suspect that the spread of Christianity was a significant contributor to the fall of the Roman empire and the following dark ages and has been corrupting the Western world ever since. But disregarding that I do think that the paleoconservative position seems to be quite decent.

Few days ago I also watched Alex Jones video ‘EndGame’ in which the paleoconservative Mr. Jones tries to expose the plans of the ‘New World Order‘ people. There’s some entertaining stuff like Jones shouting to some random people attending the Bilderberger group meeting ‘I’m not your slave! I’m not your property!’ with his nice Texan accent while they are supposedly preparing to plan the major events that will happen in the world.

However, I ended up having the impression that it is actually a clever attempt to discredit the anti-conspiracy movement or to fool some of its participants. It has some good stuff, which may be true, but then it goes on to claim that the powerful conspirators have long been planning to reduce the world population to more manageable levels (like half a billion). Things like this don’t seem to make any sense to me as it seems more like they have actually just been trying to eradicate the white race by pouring countless billions in foreign aid to third world countries so that their populations have been able to multiply and promoting mass third world immigration into the Western world in order to replace their formerly white populations (all at taxpayers’ expense of course so that the white people don’t have money to multiply themselves.. with the exception of parasites that is). And obviously it seems that Jews have been heavily involved in its production as even the editor is a guy with the surname ‘Jacobson’. They may have even funded its production so it’s not surprising that Alex Jones and his message may have been compromised in order to promote Jewish interests.

The video also goes on to name transhumanists as working for the New World Order. As a member of WTA I did not find that part of the video particularly convincing either. Although I have to say I’ve grown a bit suspicious of the Jewish involvement in major transhumanist organizations. After being banned from one list by no other person than Natasha Vita-More myself I have come to realize she might have some serious Jewish blood in her veins too. I have not seen any public disclosure of her heritage but I know she was growing up in Manhattan, has come from Russia I think, and had formerly the name Nancie Clark (not so common name for Jews but a quick internet search lead me to find out that for example Wesley Clark has acknowledged his Jewish roots as well). Not to mention that I’ve read that changing names is an important part of the Jewish tradition as it was actually promoted in Talmud (remember all those Jews that had changed their names as they took part in the Bolshevik revolution). Hence it seems she quite likely has Ashkenazi roots herself and thus it was hardly surprising she would not want me to expose the Jewish supremacists on her list. She is probably one of them herself!

Also, I have to admit some prominent members of the WTA are openly promoting global governance, which I don’t think is a good idea myself, and seems to be part of the plan that the global elites are executing. And yes it seems they have some connections with those people who may well be part of the global elite. But I have no idea what they may have been planning together.

Report This Post

Why a sane society needs introverts

Having mentioned Chris Brand’s interesting book ‘The g Factor’ I think I’d better share one of its small gems of knowledge:

Hans Eysenck had long presumed quiet and serious ‘introverts’ to be likely to do relatively well at laboratory tasks requiring vigilance, attention, persistence and memory. In fact, it emerged that, by and large, it was fun-loving ‘extroverts’ who were better at coming to terms with the novel (and often trivial) tasks of the experimental psychologist’s laboratory: they tended to score better in the short term. Introverts did better chiefly if testing was extended over several days and required long term memory storage and recall (see Matthews, 1993; Brand, 1994b). Apparently, extroverts can free attentional resources for rapid performance in the task at hand by the expedient of not engaging in so much long-term storage of what is going on. They can be said to process what is going on less deeply than introverts. The latter analyse input more fully (for meaning, not just for sound or spelling) and link it more widely to what is already stored in memory. It is as if the introvert provides a more ‘powerful’, memory-establishing treatment of incoming happenings and stimuli; but this extra processing means that the immediately required reaction to the experimenter’s problem-stimulus takes longer to arrange. (30) As with other mental ability distinctions having little relation to g , it must be stressed that both ‘extroverted’ and ‘introverted’ strategies (or styles) have their own special advantages; and that higher levels of g will improve people’s performances at both short-term and long-term memory for meaningful material.

As an introvert, I have to say there seems to be a lot of truth in that. In social situations I often come out as awkward and it takes me longer to learn to do new things well (though I’d like to think in time I tend to get better than the average). So it makes sense that this might be because I tend to take (or I’m ‘wired’ to take) more things into consideration than extroverts and in practice this tends to make the learning process and interaction with other people more complicated. Hence the observed awkwardness and slow learning but eventual excellence (in some areas at least.. actually, quite sadly not in that many areas!).

Still, the society at large tends to favor extroverts. In public schools introverts are probably more often bullied for example which may hurt their future performance. And in many workplaces I suppose they tend to be promoted less often than extroverts because they aren’t that sociable. I do suspect that discriminating against the introverts less would be good for the overall society as decision making processes in many organizations should benefit from the advantages that the introverts have.

I might add that I think that because at the genetic level genes for extroversion and introversion are in competition, it seems the extroverts have evolved tendencies to use dirty tactics such as bullying to counter the advantages the introverts would otherwise have if their development would not be hindered due to bullying. As long as there are no working solutions to bullying when both the introverts and the extroverts are in the same place in public school like environments, it might be worth experimenting whether the outcome is better if they are segregated into different schools. Though I expect some resistance from the extroverts who benefit from the current situation.

Report This Post

The Culture of Betrayal III

Note: it might be a good idea to read the parts I & II first.

After considering the contents of Kevin MacDonald’s book CofC, I have been re-analyzing some of my previous encounters with Jewish movements. One of them is this movement behind the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (SI) dedicated to bringing on a safe ‘intelligence explosion’ to benefit all of humanity whose founder Eliezer Yudkowsky is of course a hardcore Jew (looks like one too!).

Some years ago some of my acquaintances started making substantial contributions to his non-profit organization (they were proud members of Mensa I might add). At that time, after I had read much of what Yudkowsky had published, I casually compared him to Jesus Christ in an email-discussion with one contributor. I noted that those who most loudly profess altruism, like Eliezer and Jesus, tend to be some sort of scam-artists (like leftist politicians who claim to be working for the ‘public good’ while actually their actions indicate they are mostly interested in getting more power to themselves). And as I hardly believe in anything supernatural, I of course think that Jesus of Nazareth was probably a scam-artist (like Jews also think I suppose). At that time I didn’t consciously realize it but of course Jesus was also Jewish just like Yudkowsky.

And now the Jesus Cult has managed to fool billions of people while Yudkowsky has managed to get his cause maybe a few million bucks in donations and other support. I could also note that I find it a bit funny that many guys who are very critical of Jews have fallen for maybe the biggest Jewish scam-artist of all times themselves: Jesus. If humans have one thing in plenty that surely is gullibility.

Nevertheless, the person I was having the discussion with was perhaps unsurprisingly unconvinced as he had already invested so much to SI and started being quite hostile towards me. Still, after reading CofC, I feel even more strongly that it sure pays to be very skeptical of Jewish movements like that (especially when SI has produced very little of what can be objectively assessed to be worth something and is hardly very transparent). I’d say I feel a bit vindicated. It almost seems that Jews have a quite common innate desire to use their intellects for scam-artistry. I hate to say it but that might explain a lot of what has been happening in the world. Starting with folks like Jesus and continuing with folks like the Rothschilds, Franz Boas (I don’t think you can be honest and smart and then ‘demonstrate’ that only culture is responsible for racial differences.. therefore he must have been dishonest!), Freud, Gould and now Yudkowsky. Though I admit I’m making these claims based on inadequate knowledge so I may well be wrong. And I won’t deny that I have occasionally found Yudkowsky’s writings on Overcoming Bias worth reading (still I doubt his public writings alone are worth what he has received so far).

Well, I’m getting a little tired writing already, but before stopping today, I could also note that although I so far still respect some Jews like Ayn Rand, whose objectivist movement I’ve been observing, she had some serious shortcomings too, which should be obvious to any critical reader of her article on Racism — her very worst one in my opinion as very few are racists in the sense that Rand uses the term in that article and in addition empirical evidence like the twin studies surely contradict Ayn Rand’s claims as well… as does the field of evolutionary psychology. This is not good for the reputation of the founder of objectivism though I admit people knew a lot less around the time Rand wrote that essay.

It seems Ayn Rand may have been deceiving herself (a common trait for Jews and others if people like MacDonald and Robert Trivers are to be taken seriously), if she did not promote that kind of thinking because of Jewish group-think (inspired by people like Franz Boas) which tried to downplay race differences, as apparently Rand herself preferred to associate with other Jews, which kind of contradicts her expressed thoughts on that subject (see this or some texts on Ayn Rand’s Jewish years). Anyway, that single article surely casts some serious doubts on Rand’s intellectual sincerity. I hate to say it, but that’s just another indication that it is really hard to find a totally straight-thinking Jew.

Report This Post

No good deed shall go unpunished

That indeed seems to be the doctrine that dominates in the establishments around the world as even this one recent news item titled ‘Psychology professor denounces departments’ reprimands of his work’ indicates. The PeeCee crowd attacks MacDonald for his work including the book ‘The Culture of Critique’:

Though the history and anthropology departments have chosen to distance themselves from MacDonald and his work, they said they maintain and respect his First Amendment rights and academic freedom.

Both statements led MacDonald to question just how much his freedoms were respected.

“The fact is that even though the history department and others at the university claim to defend my academic freedom, the intense assault on my work as well as the ostracism that one must endure certainly has a chilling effect on academic freedom,” said MacDonald. “That is, professors who have views that conflict with well-entrenched, commonly held views are clearly getting the message that they will they will pay a high price for publicizing their views.”

MacDonald has said he will take legal action about the statements made by the history department that claim he did not do proper research for his book. He said the claims were defamatory and libelous.

Fear not. For I at least shall continue writing on this topic as well in my soon to be continued ‘The Culture of Betrayal’ series in order to keep the candle of enlightenment alive.

(and let us not forget what happened to Chris Brand for trying to publish his book ‘The g factor’ years ago.. I myself read it just a year ago and found it to be quite refreshing)

Report This Post

The Culture of Betrayal II

It took longer than expected, but at least I have finally read all of Kevin MacDonald’s book ‘The Culture of Critique: An evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements’. As I don’t have a terribly good memory myself, I should probably read it again in order to get its contents burned better into my declarative memory, but at this moment I’ll write some of my casual observations I have made based on it. At first, I might note that David Duke included some of the same things into his later book on Jewish supremacism, but MacDonald’s book has more details and is definitely worth reading for everyone who doesn’t mind going into some trouble when trying to understand what’s happening now and why.

In short, critical analysis of history shows that Jews have used their considerable intellects to initiate and run many movements that in effect undermine the fabric of Western civilization while at the same time covertly promoting Jewish interests. The trouble with smart Jews is that they often make a lot of sense but then at times carefully twist their public thinking in ways that often fool the gentiles into thinking that something which is harmful to their interests is actually for their own good. Thus even if they do much good thinking they may cause more harm than good in the end for the society as a whole.

One example, which MacDonald analyses quite nicely, is Freud’s psychoanalysis cult which was dominated by Jews and which promoted pseudo-scientific ideas that may well have been chosen because Freud had calculated their adoption by their competitors would lead to the growth of Jewish power. Other examples are the Boasian movement, Jews of the Frankfurt school and so called New York intellectuals who of course were mainly Jews (though as MacDonald writes Jews have pretty consistently used gentile front men in their movements so that the casual observer doesn’t instantly understand that the Jews are running the show).

The Boasian movement, initiated by Franz Boas, downplayed the importance of race against empirical evidence and thus in effect paved the way for multiculturalism and third world immigration into the Western world (even nowadays Wikipedia tells us that ‘Boas was especially concerned with racial inequality, which he had demonstrated was not biological in origin, but rather social’… yeah right!).

The heavily Jewish Frankfurt school included some thinkers who may be not that well known nowadays but whose ideas still influence much of modern thinking especially on the left side of the political spectrum. Maybe the most widely recognized of them was Theodor Adorno, whose book ‘The Authoritarian Personality’, seems to continue the quite popular Jewish tradition of trying to appear scientific while at the same time disregarding empirical evidence and in the end getting it all backwards in the way that may easily lead to negative consequences for the ones who take his ideas seriously.

Another notable contribution that has played a very questionable part in modern time is Derrida’s idea of deconstruction (Derrida was himself descended from marrano Jews in Spain who had lived centuries hiding their true beliefs). To me at least deconstruction has seemed to be very counterproductive(atleastinthosecasesIhaveseenitused) but I can’t say I understand it very well and at this time I doubt I will take the time to study it.

Then there’s of course people like Stephen J. Gould who continued the Boasian tradition with books like ‘The mismeasure of man’ but others have dissected his thoughts quite well so I won’t write more about him.

Of some personal interest to me is the part where MacDonald details the Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution which lead to the formation of the Soviet Union and the era of Stalin and the territorial conquest of my great-grandparents’ estate in Karelia. Let’s just say they don’t teach about the Jewish involvement in Finnish public schools (or else I have totally forgotten about it). And I guess it would be called unacceptably anti-semitic if they did. And for some reasons, I’m pretty sure the Rothschilds and Jacob Schiff’s estate, who financed the movement, have not paid reparations for anyone (and contrary to public knowledge the Rothschilds may still be one of the world’s richest families, trillionaires actually, along with marrano Jewish Rockefellers though I have to rely on very questionable sources easily available on the internet… still after obtaining vast powers in the previous centuries that may have enabled their ‘ascendancy’ beyond the realm of mortal men I cannot dismiss the possibility of that being true.. anyway, they probably would have the money). Though of course they just financed the movement that lead to the murders of millions of people in gulags so I’m sure they cannot be considered responsible (in their own thinking anyway). In any case, it seems the Soviet Union would never have existed unless the Jews wouldn’t have been so heavily for it.

MacDonald also gives an in-depth analysis of the Jewish involvement in opening the floodgates for multicultural mass immigration into the US (and a more superficial account of their involvement elsewhere). They had started their efforts already around 1880’s and finally succeeded in 1965. After that the Western world has been in seriouscomparative decline while the Jews have been growing ever more influential (as for example the Iraq war that may well serve mostly Jewish interests shows.. the oil sure wasn’t worth it I gather.. also the fact that all the current Presidential candidates in the US are supporting Jew-approved immigration plans kinda reveals their influence as the majority of Americans don’t seem to support mass immigration to such an extent).

To conclude this post I’ll note that I find it almost infinitely interesting to study the Jewish influence in order to understand whether it has been in the end more good than bad (alsounderstandingtheir influence willhopefully help me think of ways how to counter it if it reallyhasbeen as bad as I now think), but sadly my time is very limited now and the full understanding of the situation is no doubt beyond my mental capabilities. Still, I have a dream, that one day, when the age of spiritual machines has dawned, I can unleash an AI to digest everything on the internet and break into every data vault on the planet in order to form a coherent picture of the situation, so that one day, the Jews and the rest of us can get what we truly deserve. For now I’m limited to publishing these casual writings however.

(More to follow in part III someday soon I hope)

Report This Post

A report from the European front

I’ve just spent some leisure time strolling the streets of Munich. As European cities go, Munich is not too bad. I could imagine
enjoying living here although
I myself do prefer a more modern look than European cities generally offer.

And when it comes to people, I do feel some affinity for the German stock as they do seem to be pretty much like me on average. At least more like me than maybe most others in Europe. I even went so far that I spent a night with a German woman. I was planning to spend more time with her, but then I did the most stupid thing imaginable: I started arguing with her about how I didn’t quite appreciate how many Turks and blacks there are in Munich. You know, when I went to Hauptbahnhof, at least every second person I passed on the side streets was Turkish, Middle Eastern or black and the stores were predominantly ethnic ones too. I told her that this naturally leads to more conflict and the decline of Western civilization as the situation is after all pretty similar in most bigger European cities.

However, she had basically swallowed every single line of the liberal canon and found my view and explanations heretical. She even questioned the concept of intelligence itself and claimed that nobody can put any number on how much of the observed intelligence differences between races are due to genetic factors. And she said Europe needs even more diversity. I myself gave her some simple working definition of intelligence, I told her the twin studies let us make a decent estimate of how important the inherited factors are even though it’s not easy to give an exact number and told her that there are good and bad diversity as exemplified by the fact that black Africans are the most genetically diverse race and yet African societies are the worst in the world (thus diversity of course isn’t any guarantee of improvement and I think there’s little reason to expect that adding blacks to Europe will result in any sort of improvement). I argued about other things too and the result was that she threw me out.

Well, I of course should have known better than to do that as I already had noted some hints that she embraced a contrary worldview that is very typical for women. Still, it ended up being a confrontation that confirmed (once again) that I’m not wrong about how crazy the typical woman is. And how little women actually know, she for example had never heard about Geert Wilders or Theo van Gogh or the concept of Eurabia and obviously she had never bothered to research independently any of the issues relevant to her leftist pro-immigration position. She just thought in the exact way all those ‘respectable’ people in the establishment want her to think.

I was left wondering how mad she would have been if I had honestly told about how I think men have given women already way too much power and it’s time to take some of their powers back. I honestly can’t see how Western societies can survive if women like her are allowed to continue to make the decisions that shape our societies to such an extent as they now do when their votes decide who our political masters are.

Conclusion: women remain as irrational as ever and there’s no easy way to reason with them, if you need more proof see for example this story from Turkey where an Italian woman got the bright idea of hitchhiking in a bridal gown and got herself raped and murdered last Saturday. But of course, you are not allowed to make generalizations about women based on single examples like these (never mind that when I studied machine learning making profitable generalizations from a collection of single instances was considered to be one hight of intelligence… one of the Holy Grails of AI). I’d say that incident in Turkey is just a little more immediately understandable example of female irrationality and that in the long run allowing third world mass immigration to Europe very likely leads to a future where women are a lot worse off than they are now or alternatively to major conflict(s) in which pretty much everyone suffers and that women who quite overwhelmingly seem to support mass immigration are basically almost as stupid or naive as that Italian woman.

Report This Post

It’s not the environment, stupid!

Yesterday, it was reported in Finland that the teachers think that the public school pupils are more restless and egoistic than before and that more than half of the teachers think the kids have generally been getting worse during the time they have been teaching (source in Finnish). I noted that some commentators were already blaming the culture and the way the parents are bringing their kids up. But of course, so far I have seen not a single person, who is working for the establishment, claiming that since in Finland more than half of what people earn is redistributed through government, mostly from responsible people to welfare bums, scam-artists and public sector workers, it should be obvious that it is not the good responsible people who have been having as many children as they had before massive redistribution started taking place.

I’ve read about many convincing studies that personality traits are often something like 50% heritable so how can the educators and others immediately jump to the conclusion that this apparent change has to be because of environmental factors. Nobody ever mentions that it might be because the irresponsible folks are breeding in Finland at the expense of the responsible people! Of course that just can’t be possible! And obviously the public sector needs even more taxpayer money to find solutions to this. Yeah, it’s the class sizes! They are too big! More teachers and more money for them! There can be no other explanations!

Not to say I don’t think that the environment can’t be a significant contributor to the worsening situation, but surely it is not necessarily the most important one. Also, if the irresponsible are having children at the taxpayers’ expense, obviously they also neglect their duties at bringing up their children in a responsible manner. And as I have written previously, I am all for privatizing the education system. Giving more expropriated money to public schools isn’t the answer.

In conclusion, as the establishment and most people deny reality, the Finnish society is most likely moving downhill. And as the progress seems to be quite similar all around the Western world, the risk of entering another dark age grows.

Report This Post

Some lazy thoughts on Sunday evening

I’m still reading Kevin MacDonald’s brilliant book but I found he has also recently published this one decent article on VDare which highlights the glaring discrepancy between what is nowadays commonly accepted in ‘respectable’ leftist Western circles that dominate much of public discourse and what the actual science tells:

Indeed, a mainstay of the intellectual left since Franz Boas and his disciples came to dominate academic anthropology beginning in the 1920s has been a rejection of any theories that allow for biological influences on culture. A corollary is that different peoples and different cultures do not, therefore, have legitimate, biologically-based conflicts of interest.

But the data are quite clear: There are genetic distances between different peoples and different peoples therefore have legitimate conflicts of interest. And: there are deep psychological roots to ethnocentrism that make us attracted to and more trusting of genetically similar others.

Which is pretty much why I think multiculturalism most likely leads back to the Dark Ages and eventual bloodshed especially when it is practiced in welfare states (note: the article has many other good links too that shed more light to the situation).

Fjordman has also written another good piece for the Brussels Journal in which he concludes that indeed the European Union deserves nothing more than to be disbanded. I could also say that the EU elites appear to be so monstrous and psychopathic that only their public executions can bring some justice back to Europe. I demand to see some heads rolling. Just to make it viscerally clear for the general public that the age of bullshit and betrayal is over. On a related note I could point out this Kevin Barrett’s article ‘Twilight of the psychopaths’. Some crazy stuff included but I’m not saying it’s not all true.

And yes, I suspect Fjordman hasn’t yet realized the part Jews have been playing in bringing on this ongoing downfall of the Western civilization. More on that as soon as I have time and energy to write about my latest thoughts on the subject.

Report This Post

Suddenly, the world makes all the more sense

Tyler Cowen, a smart Jewish economist and blogger, who usually tends to be for less regulation just suddenly gets very creative at thinking why giving more power to the Federal Reserve might not be such a bad idea. Any chance this is a fine example of that Jewish ethnocentrisity keeping in mind my previous post which notes that the Jews are running the central bank? Regulation is generally bad but obviously not so bad when it works for the benefit of Jews! Just brilliant!

Better keep that in mind when reading what Tyler thinks and recommends in the future.

Report This Post