Why We Should Ban “Hate Speech”

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, August 24, 2012

Amendment
A bad argument we cannot afford to ignore.

Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95.

First-Amendment guarantees of free speech are a cherished part of the American tradition and set us apart from virtually every other country. They are not without critics, however, and the free speech guarantees under sharpest attack are those that protect so-called “hate speech.” Jeremy Waldron, an academic originally from New Zealand, has written a whole book explaining why “hate speech” does not deserve protection—and Harvard University Press has published it. Prof. Waldron teaches law and philosophy at New York University Law School, is a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and is an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand. Perhaps his foreign origins influence his view of the First Amendment.

In this book, Professor Waldron makes just one argument for banning “hate speech.” It is not a good argument, and if this is the best the opponents of free speech can do, the First Amendment should be secure. However, in the current atmosphere of “anti-racism,” any argument against “hate speech” could influence policy, so let us understand his argument as best we can.

First, Professor Waldron declares that “we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences.” Western societies are determined to let in every sort of person imaginable and make them feel respected and equal in every way. “Inclusiveness” is something “that our society sponsors and that it is committed to.”

Therefore, what would we make of a “hate speech” billboard that said: “Muslims and 9/11! Don’t serve them, don’t speak to them, and don’t let them in”? Or one with a picture of Muslim children that said “They are all called Osama”? Or posters that say such things as “Muslims out,” “No blacks allowed,” or “All blacks should be sent back to Africa”?

Professor Waldron writes that it is all very well for law professors and white people to say that this is the price we pay for free expression, but we must imagine what it must be like for the Muslim or black who must explain these messages to his children. “Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials?”

Just like “hate speech.”

Professor Waldron insists that a “sense of security in the space we all inhabit is a public good,” like pretty beaches or clean air, and is so precious that the law should require everyone to maintain it:

Hate speech undermines this public good . . . . It does this not only by intimating discrimination and violence, but by reawakening living nightmares of what this society was like . . . .  [I]t creates something like an environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society to play their part in maintaining this public good.

Professor Waldron tells us that the purpose of “hate speech” is to try to set up a “rival public good” in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities.

When we talk about politics or religion, we can be as rough as we like, but the “public good” of racial tolerance is different: “It is a recent and fragile achievement in the United States, and the idea that law can be indifferent to published assaults upon this principle seems to me a quite unwarranted extrapolation from what we have found ourselves able to tolerate in the way of political and religious dissent.”

“Diversity” and “inclusiveness” are so wonderful but fragile that maintaining the “dignity” of “vulnerable minorities” (Professor Waldron loves this expression) is a positive obligation not only for government but for individuals. The law should therefore require us to “refrain from acting in a way that is calculated to undermine the dignity of other people.” As Professor Waldron explains:

What is important is that citizens have a public assurance that this is so [that they all be equally accepted], and that this public assurance be provided not just by the government and the laws, but by citizens assuring one another of their willingness to cooperate in the administration of the laws in the humane and trustful enterprise that elementary justice requires.

“Diversity” is a glass house; “hate speech” is a stone.

Professor Waldron concedes that in most cases, one would consider muzzling speech only if it leads directly to violence; someone shouts “she’s a witch,” and the mob beats her. He believes “hate speech” can lead to violence, but it need not have any consequences at all for it to work evil so horrible it must be prevented by law. To those who say minorities will just have to go about their business despite “hate speech,” Professor Waldron replies:

But the point of a general and implicit assurance given by society to all of its members, sustaining their ordinary dignity, is that it should not be necessary for them to laboriously conjure up the courage to go out and try to flourish in what is now presented to them as a partially hostile environment. To the extent that the message conveyed by the racist already puts them on the defensive, and distracts them from the ordinary business of life with the grim determination to try and act like a normal citizen against all the odds—to that extent, the racist speech has already succeeded in one of its destructive aims.

Professor Waldron is saying that to have planted the thought in the mind of a “vulnerable minority” that someone doesn’t want him around is as damaging as a physical assault and therefore should be a crime.

Despite this astonishing position, Professor Waldron insists that he is not advocating laws that protect against being offended. He says people should be allowed to be as offensive as they like, but that offence-giving is so radically different from his concept of undermining “dignity” that anyone who cannot see the difference is guilty of “studied obtuseness.”

I tried very hard to see the difference, and the best I could make out is this: It is OK to attack a religion or its founder but not its believers; we can go after Islam or Mohammed, for example, but we must protect the “dignity” of Muslims. I cannot figure out how this distinction applies to race. Professor Waldron gives no examples of how we might give infinite (but permissible) offense to blacks without undermining their “dignity.” I don’t think, by his way of thinking, that would even be possible.

In any case, Professor Waldron’s “vulnerable minorities” can’t see the difference any better than I can. The Danish cartoonish Kurt Westergaard drew the famous picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, but never said anything unkind about Muslims. Danish Muslims have tried to kill him several times anyway, and he lives under constant police scrutiny in a special, attack-proof house. Muslims clearly see no difference between giving offense and undermining “dignity.”

Offence-giving or dignity-undermining?

If Professor Waldron has another idea besides “dignity” as a “public good,” it would be that just as the law protects individuals from libel, it should protect groups from libel. He notes approvingly that the Canadian province of Manitoba prohibits group libel, and that there is even a Supreme Court precedent that recognizes it as a crime: the 1952 decision in Beauharnais v. Illinois.

In 1950, Joseph Beauharnais, president of something called the White Circle League of America, distributed segregationist leaflets in Chicago that said, in part:

We are not against the negro; we are for the white people, and the white people are entitled to protection. . . . [and should unite]. If persuasion and the need to prevent the white race from being mongrelized by the negro will not unite us, then the aggressions . . . rapes, robberies, knives, guns and marijuana of the negro, SURELY WILL.

The pamphlet did not call for violence, nor did it cause any. Nevertheless, Beauharnais was found guilty under a 1917 Illinois law that forbade any writing that portrayed the “depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed, or religion,” and was fined $200. The US Supreme Court upheld the Illinois law in a 5-4 decision. Justice Felix Frankfurter called the pamphlet “criminal libel” against a group.

That was curious reasoning. Beauharnais never said all blacks are rapists and robbers. He may not even have been saying that they were more likely than whites to be rapists or robbers. It sounds to me that he was saying that when blacks rape or rob whites that will unite whites.

Professor Waldron concedes that to say that some blacks are rapists or robbers is not group libel, but insists that saying such behavior is characteristic of blacks should be libel (he is silent on the question of race differences in crime rates).

But what if Beauharnais really had said that every single black is a rapist, robber, and gun- and knife-toting dope fiend? That is obviously false, and Professor Waldron says that just as the law punishes false statement about individuals, it should punish false statements about groups. That is silly. If someone says I am a gun-toting dope fiend, it is not obviously false—my reputation could suffer—but no one is going to believe such a statement about a whole race of people.

Professor Waldron points out that many legal scholars claim Beauharnais has been effectively overturned by the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, according to which public figures cannot recover damages unless they can prove reckless disregard for the truth. I think Professor Waldron is right to argue that this ruling has nothing to do with group libel, and that the Beauharnais precedent still stands, at least in theory.

Professor Waldron points out that the First Amendment has not always been interpreted as expansively as it is today, so it might be possible to ban “hate speech” without doing much damage to precedent. He mentions prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, and cites the 1823 case of a Massachusetts man who was jailed for denying the existence of God. He writes that when courts in the mid-19th century struck down blasphemy laws, they did so on anti-establishment grounds, not free-speech grounds. Blasphemy could be punished only as long as Christianity was considered an indispensable support of government.

Blasphemy laws are still common in the Middle East.

Even more to the point was the Supreme Court’s support for the Espionage Act during the First World War. Oliver Wendel Holmes upheld a jail sentence for a man who opposed the draft, likening it to slavery. Holmes wrote that government could not carry out its business in a political environment that was “polluted” (Professor Waldron’s word) with this kind of talk. This thinking is eerily similar to Professor Waldron’s theory that “hate speech” “pollutes” the atmosphere the government has so carefully constructed to protect the “dignity” of minorities.

It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court began to interpret the First Amendment in the way most people understand it today. Professor Waldron helpfully adds that its language can therefore be reinterpreted, or the Constitution amended.

This book argues that “hate speech” might conceivably have a justification if it represented one side of a question that was still unresolved—in other words, if “hatemongers” had anything even faintly plausible to say—but this is not so: “In fact, the fundamental debate about race is over—won; finished.” Race is “no longer a live issue.” Diversity is glorious, the races are interchangeable, and any white who wants to live among other whites is a hatemonger. Professor Waldron would say that these ideas are now part of the “settled features” of our way of life, and so to crush dissent takes nothing away from the search for truth or legitimate debate.

Breathtaking, isn’t it? And yet Professor Waldron is not so confident after all. He explicitly rejects the argument that in the “marketplace of ideas” the good drives out the bad: “We do not buy into the assumption that truth will eventually prevail in the marketplace of ideas, or the assumption that the best remedy for bad speech is more speech.”

But how can this be, if “the fundamental debate about race is over”? If race is “no longer a live issue” even “vulnerable minorities” should shrug off “hate speech.” If, as Professor Waldron insists, the lives of minorities are blighted by the merest whiff of “hate,” race must not be a “settled question” at all.

Given that Professor Waldron’s views are so fragile they requires the support of censorship, he may have tipped his hand as to his true motives when he touches on another reason for banishing certain kinds of speech: “[W]e want to convey the sense that the bigots are isolated, embittered individuals, rather than permit them to contact and coordinate with one another.” Stop “bigots” from contacting each other or working together? What happened to high-minded concerns about “dignity”? This is nothing more than Soviet-style censorship.

How to treat a “bigot.”

In fact, Professor Waldron tips his hand throughout this book. First, he cannot conceive of anyone who would disagree on the subject of race without being a “hater.” He cannot conceive of a white man (or a Japanese or a Nigerian) who wants to be left alone to enjoy the society built by his ancestors. He cannot conceive of a white man who appreciates his own race but does not want to do violence to people of other races. This pitiable closed-mindedness turns Professor Waldron into the very monster of hate he thinks he is combating.

Consider how he writes about his opponents. They are “hatemongers” who “pollute the social environment” with their “poisonous ideals,” “grotesque defamations,” “vicious insults and vituperations,” “foul denigrations,” and “vicious characterizations.” They “sit smoldering in their dens,” “screaming vile insults.” They are “foul and vicious,” “viciously vituperative,” “hateful and virulent.”  The “hate speaker” “spits out his hated” and “his loathing” as he “defaces and pollutes the environment.”

Whew! Joe Beauharnais could have learned something about hate from this book.

Professor Waldron tells us that “hatemongers” “bestialize” people, and he writes happily of a British judge who jailed a man who put up posters likening black people to monkeys. But Professor Waldron “bestializes” his opponents, too. He writes that permitting “hate speech” means the “bigots” can contact each other and we must live in wretchedness “as the wolves call to one another across the peace of a decent society.” Champions of tolerance are so consumed with hatred they are not even aware of what they are doing.

Professor Waldron destroys his argument in other ways. In his attempt to distinguish between giving offense and undermining “dignity,” he tells us he thinks the views held by many Tea Party members are “socially dangerous.” He says we may offend Tea Partiers by attacking their views, but we should not be allowed to attack them personally by saying that Tea Party politicians are dishonest or should not be trusted with public funds: “That would be a scurrilous attack on what I have called their elementary dignity in a society” and should therefore be illegal. Practically every day someone tells us Republicans are selfish swine who care only about the rich. Anyone who thinks people should be fined or jailed for saying something like that is a kook.

Professor Waldron makes another terrible argument for “dignity:” “[P]ornography says that women are a lower form of human life . . .” and “makes a massive difference to the environment in which women have to lead their lives.” “Hate speech” damages minorities in exactly the same way and should be banned just as pornography should be banned. Hardly anyone thinks pornography makes a “massive difference” to a woman’s environment, and very few people are trying to ban it.

But let us overlook Professor Waldron’s bad arguments, his ignorance about race, and his uncontrollable hatred for people with whom he disagrees. People who are attracted to his “dignity” idea will not hold that against him, so we should examine it as if Professor Waldron had been better able to control himself.

First, does “hate speech” really demoralize “vulnerable minorities”? This is his central argument, but he doesn’t give a shred of evidence for it.

When non-whites first began coming to Britain in the 1950s, many whites didn’t like it. They wrote “Wogs out” on walls, and there was just enough anti-Asian violence for the press to write about “Paki-bashing.” If these assaults on “dignity” were as crushing as Professor Waldron says, Asians would have gone home. Instead, they kept pouring into Britain. “Vulnerable minorities” continue to pour into the United States, too, despite an absence of “hate speech” laws.

In fact, “hate speech” often has the opposite effect of the one Professor Waldron claims: liberals beat their breasts and shower minorities with sympathy. That is why so much “hate” is phony. A single graffito can send an entire college campus into paroxysms of white guilt that can be milked for important advantages. If “hate speech” does not exist it has to be invented.

Professor Waldron also insists that he doesn’t want to ban the content of “hate speech;” only “hateful” expression. He says most speech-muzzling laws “bend over backwards” to ensure that “racists” can “restate their racism or their contempt . . . in more moderate terms, less calculated to stir up hatred.”

And yet the examples of “hate speech” Professor Waldron would ban are not “vituperation.” “All blacks should be sent back to Africa,” is a statement of an opinion. Would this alternative be more acceptable? “Given the low average IQ of blacks, their unwillingness to assimilate, the disinclination of whites to seek their society, and persistent racial tensions, we think blacks and whites should separate and the best place for blacks is Africa.” If “don’t let Muslims in” were vituperative “hate speech,” it would be hard to know how to rephrase so as to satisfy Professor Waldron. Despite Professor Waldron’s denials, it certainly seems he wants to ban opinions just as much as “hateful” forms of expression.

Liberian one-cent piece issued by the American Colonization Society.

Also, if Professor Waldron really cares about the “dignity” of minorities he should be more worried about carefully reasoned arguments than caricatures. Many blacks would probably be more bothered by a public discussion of race differences in IQ than by an insulting poster. Whether Professor Waldron likes it or not, there is only one way to protect “dignity,” and that is to outlaw certain opinions, ideas, and facts.

This book leaves many important questions unanswered. It never defines “hate speech,” so we don’t know what to ban. Does the speaker’s intent matter or only his words? Do we punish only white people or do we punish “vulnerable minorities” who insult other “vulnerable minorities”? Are any minorities not vulnerable? What happens when whites become a minority? What about the white minorities who live in Detroit or attend the St. Louis public schools? Professor Waldron appears not to have thought through any of this.

Professor Waldron reports that fine countries such as France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Britain, and Denmark limit free speech and that the United States is out of step. He cites international agreements that say certain kinds of speech “shall be prohibited by law,” and tells us “the international human-rights consensus cannot be lightly dismissed.” He makes all the arguments he can think of about “dignity” and “pollution” and “hate,” and then—without explanation—tells us he isn’t really sure the United States even should pass “hate speech” laws!

This is already a bad book, full of bad arguments. To add this disclaimer suggests another defect: dishonesty.

Topics: , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • IlikesugarandIliketea

    Self-appointed thought police like Waldron tend to have a level of fondness for “vulnerable minorities” that is in inverse proportion to their lifetime exposure to such groups. I doubt Waldron has spent much of life celebrating the wonders of diversity as a white man in black or hispanic neighborhoods. If he had, he would understand that his own life is very vulnerable.

    Why does he choose to conduct his affairs in a majority white nation? Could it be the rule of law and freedom of speech are not ingrained in nations populated in majority by “vulnerable minorities”?

    • Dan Reardon

       I believe people like Waldon find out fast that there’s money and adulation to be had in academia if you follow their official script.

    • TOMGILLILANatGMAIL

       Is Waldron a white man?

      • Marcy Fleming

         White and Jewish.

  • http://twitter.com/peppermint6789 Sage Basil

    “[W]e want to convey the sense that the bigots are isolated, embittered
    individuals, rather than permit them to contact and coordinate with one
    another.” –Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012

    There it is.  Any time anything gets censored for “hatespeeech”, we can quote this moron.

    • ncpride

      It’s surprising to me to actually see a long held theory of mine confirmed. A lot of sites no longer allow comments on articles where black crime , illegal immigration or Islam is concerned, or if they do, many of them are deleted and the reason is the quote from this guy in your post. Mostly, it’s Whites that are speaking out and making harsher, bolder comments on these articles, and people like this guy are terrified of any kind of unity among us, because the purpose is to make us feel alone and ashamed of our righteous anger.

      For someone supposedly so smart, he sure is stupid about basic human nature. Suppressing discussion, debate, anger and concerns through ‘hate speech’ laws will not make those feelings and discontent go away, but will in fact inflate them to a point of explosion, then things get really ugly.

  • JustaWhiteMom

    If “minorities” are vulnerable, why should whites not object to becoming one in ALL historically white countries?

    I am really beginning to think this is a deliberate conspiracy to get rid of us.

    • TOMGILLILANatGMAIL

       It is.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YL6T3BJRP7N3DDTPORHM2J2GFQ Chris R; Something Clever

    Aww, minorities are getting their fewings hout.  Cry me a river.  These anti-racists realize that in the marketplace of ideas the race realists have too much sway so they want to quell this heresy of the diversity/multicult orthodoxy.  This is the Dark Ages all over again.

    Anyone that dares try to institute hate speech laws will have the 1st Amendment slapped in their face and laughed out of Washington.  They can keep their thought crime laws to themselves.

    According to this pseudo-intellectual wanting to be around your own kind makes you a hatemonger.  What a joke. 

    • WhiteGuyInJapan

       ”Whatever happened to:
      “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
      Voltaire”

      C’mon, you know the answer to that one.  Voltaire was an evil racist “hater”. 

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      Whatever happened to:
      “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”
      Even children’s truisms are beyond the ken of the wise liberal.

  • KenelmDigby

    Out of all the different ‘scholars’ out there law professors along with sociologists appear to be the very worst.
     Basically, many have got power-drunk on their specialism (which really isn’t ven ean academic ‘field of study’ as such) and just abuse their positions to pervert and twist all sorts of arguments in order to ‘prove’ any point the might imagine (through bombastic verbiage) or else to intimidate people through proposing draconian new laws whilst working in cahoots with their brothers-in-arms, the political class.
     The professor reminds me of the Mad Hatter in Lewis Carroll’s splendid ‘Alice in Wondeland’ – according to the Mad Hatter’s logic a thing is ‘true’ if the Mad Hatter says it is ‘true’.

    He’s little better than pre-enlightenment religious bigots who demanded that heretics be burned at the stake. Well the good ol’ US of A was founded as a riposte to narrow minded, little jackbooted dictators such as Waldron.

    • Kevin W. Cornell

      Social psychology professors seem particularly obnoxious as well, as they seek to pathologize normal western behavior and attitudes. Then there’s the establishment/”progessive” history, economics and political science professors, not to mention the “professors” in the womens’ and black studies’ departments.  Oh and let’s not forget the anthropology “race is just a social construct” professors in league with the sociologists. The taxpayers should not have to subsidize any of this.

    • steve button

      My undergrad was sociology-and I a conservative(though it wasn’t until I’d nearly finished that I knew that). A great and legitimate social science destroyed by Zionist partisans…

      • Pelagian

        please explain

  • haroldcrews

    Waldron’s advocacy for criminalizing ’hate speech’ would no more criminalize all ‘hate speech’ than the Civil Rights laws forbade all discrimination.  Instead what you find in both instances is that only certain ‘hate speech’ or discrimination is prohibited and certain forms of ‘hate speech’ or discrimination as the case may be is permitted or even required by the State.  You would think a man trained in the Law and responsible for training future attorneys would have higher regard for one of the bedrock principles of justice.  That being equality before the law.

  • JohnEngelman

    My objection to hate speech laws is that they could be used against American Renaissance, and books like The Bell Curve.
                                                     
    Expressions of hostility against Jews and Orientals make me almost physically ill. Nevertheless, it is easy to refute attacks on those people.

    • WhiteGuyInJapan

       I’m not advocating this, but it would be interesting to see how consistently and accurately such hate speech laws would be enforced.  Would “youths” yelling “F*** you, white boy!” be considered hate speech and similarly prosecuted as evil, hateful whites? 

      Somehow I doubt it.

      • Marcy Fleming

         First of all, we are down to 1.58% of the US population, not 2.2%.
        Second, who cares what a bunch of stinking Scandinavian Socialists award these Communist Nobel Prizes to ?
        “Dr.” King was part and parcel of the Communist Party USA and he got the Nobel in 1964.
        Leftist Kissinger and Ho’s North Vietnamese successor got the Nobel a few years later.
        Zionist killer Rabin and PLO Communist Arafat got the Nobel as did the Portugese shrink who invented lobotomies in 1935 !
        Marxist Willy Brandt got the Nobel as did warmongering Obama.
        The list goes on. To receive it is a disgrace, not an honor.
        Many of the worst crooks like Bernie Madoff in the recent scandals were Ashkenazim. Is that something to be proud of ? Many of the worst leftist academics are Ashkenazim as are the liars who run the WashPost and the NY Times.
        Why would exposure of Israeli crimes make Engelman ‘physically ill’ if he were not Ashkenazim as his surname indicates ?
        Palestine was not swamp and desert before the Zionists came, Palestine oranges were known to the US Founding Fathers.
        If a German had the sort of Master Race tirade that Engelman routinely promulgates it would be considered the lowest form of ‘racism.’
        Why does Engelman get away with it here ? I’m not advocating censorship of his benighted views but simply asking why ?
        Are some pigs more equal than others ? What’s going on ?

    • curri

      Does that mean that it makes you “physically ill” when someone points out that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty in 1967-killing 34 and wounding 171.  Both the USG and Israel are still continuing the cover-up, claiming it was “friendly fire.”

      The author of the definitive book on the incident responds to readers:
      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2009/07/liberty_authors_response.html 

      • JohnEngelman

        Claiming that the Israelis deliberately attacked an American Naval vessel during the Six Day War does not pass the laugh test. Israel depended on the United States for survival. Those who dwell on this tragic incident are motivated by antisemitism. Their hatred comes first. Their excuses come second. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lucas-Evans/100001091600634 Lucas Evans

          I’ve been reading a lot of anti-Semitism on the blogs lately. Seems like people are realizing Jews own the anti-White media. Racism of all flavors will continue to increase as the Saxon begins to hate.

          • JohnEngelman

            The Jews do not own the media. They do have a prominence out of proportion to their numbers because of their superior intelligence. 

          • Marcy Fleming

             A very broad assertion that is as racist and self-serving as it is undocumented. By our Democratic voting habits and leftist inclinations we are hardly a superior breed.

          • SLCain

            ” The Jews do not own the media.”

            in reply to:

            “Comment removed”

            That’s funny.

          • JohnEngelman

            Pandemonium,
                      
            In the 19th century, Mark Twain noted that:         

             [The  Jews] are peculiarly and conspicuously the world’s intellectual aristocracy… [Jewish] contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are.. way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world… and has done it with his hands tied behind him.

            Twain’s observation is not dated. Ashkenazi Jews have continued to mentally out-compete other demographics since his statement, often suffering horrendous consequences for their toil. Here is a brief list of Ashkenazi accomplishments in the last 90 years.  

            Nobel Prizes: Since 1950, 29% of the awards have gone to Ashkenazim, even though they represent only 0.25% of humanity. Ashkenazi achievement in this arena is 117 times greater than their population.            

            Hungary in the 1930s: Ashkenazim were 6% of the population, but they comprised 55.7% of physicians, 49.2% of attorneys, 30.4% of engineers, and 59.4% of bank officers; plus, they owned 49.4% of the metallurgy industry, 41.6% of machine manufacturing, 72.8% of clothing manufacturing, and, as housing owners, they received 45.1% of Budapest rental income. Jews were similarly successful in nearby nations, like Poland and Germany.            

            USA (today): Ashkenazi Jews comprise 2.2% of the USA population, but they represent 30% of faculty at elite colleges, 21% of Ivy League students, 25% of the Turing Award winners, 23% of the wealthiest Americans, and 38% of the Oscar-winning film directors.           

            Israel: In 1922, this swamp and desert land was inhabited by a impoverished population of 752,000. Today there are 7,746,000 residents, with an Ashkenazi majority that have elevated it into a high-tech entrepreneurial nation with the highest per capita income in the region.
            http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20110719r

          • SLCain

            “Pandemonium,
                      
            In the 19th century, Mark Twain noted that:         

            ” “[The
             Jews] are peculiarly and conspicuously the world’s intellectual
            aristocracy… [Jewish] contributions to the world’s list of great names
            in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse
            learning are.. way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He
            has made a marvelous fight in this world… and has done it with his hands
            tied behind him. “”

            Twain’s observation is not dated.”

            Since, Mr. Engelman, you consider Twain to be an authority on the jews, do you consider the other things he wrote about them to likewise be true?  Including the unflattering ones?

            I’m not fond of anti-semitism.  But I am also not fond of reflexive anti-anti-semitism, as you’ve expressed here.  And saying that an American citizen has no business being about an IDF attack on an american ship is just that.

          • JohnEngelman

            SLCain,
             
            Since, Mr. Engelman, you consider Twain to be an authority on the jews, do you consider the other things he wrote about them to likewise be true?  Including the unflattering ones? 
                         
            ————
                          
            I read any thinker for insight, rather than doctrine. The biological superiority of the Jews is so obvious it does not require a single authority to substantiate it. 

          • ViktorNN

            You seem to suffer under the delusion that the entertainment biz is run as a meritocracy. Of course it’s not.

            Who you know will always get you further than the best looking c.v., and in this respect the generations of Jews owning, running, and working in the media always look after their own. Saying that Jews are there purely because of their smarts is really quite… well, unintelligent.

          • JohnEngelman

            ViktorNN, 
            The entertainment industry is extremely competitive. Hollywood movies and television programs cost millions of dollars to produce. The vast majority of them fail. Those who invested in the failures get nothing. Who you know may get you your first opportunity. After then what you’ve done is what matters. If you strike out once you probably do not get a second chance. 

          • ViktorNN

            @JohnEngelman:disqus 
            Good of you to concede that Jews don’t get their jobs through their “superior intelligence.” 

            But you’re not thinking through the logic of your own concession.

            Whatever Jews lose their jobs through incompetence are simply replaced with more Jews.

            This happens through their extended network of families, business associates, college alumni groups and friendships, professional associations, etc. 

            Starting to get it yet?

          • Marcy Fleming

             Israel deliberately fired upon the USS Liberty, sunk it and machine-gunned sailors trying to escape from the burning ship. Read Ennes and Taylor’s two books for starters. There are several other books.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

            Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Media personalities are not people of “superior intelligence”. They are public intellectuals who are heirs to sophists, not philosophers or scientists. I dislike Judeophobia, but your Judeophilia is something immature & uncritical.  

        • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative
        • Pandemonium

          “Those who dwell on this tragic incident are motivated by antisemitism. ”
          The above is an unsubstantiated assertion.

          Those who scream “antisemitism” (sic) at the slightest criticism of Israel’s actions and/policies have lost their credibility. 

          Israel, like any other country, makes mistakes. When their mistakes negatively impact the US, we have every right, even an obligation, to criticize them.

          Respecting the USS Liberty debacle, if you have not read any well documented books about it, you should. If you have read about it, I don’t understand your comments. 

          • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

            Jews use the term antisemitic for the same reason blacks use the word racist; it’s meant to cower people into silence.

            When a Jew tries to silence me with the term antisemitic I react the same as when a black man calls me a racist. If you want a fight, you’ve got one.
             
            I don’t stand for anyone trying to stop a discussion with name calling. As far as I’m concerned, it only goes to prove how weak their arguments are and how right I am.

        • Marcy Fleming

          They did, read the books by Jim Ennes and Jim Taylor on this subject.
          BTW, your sense of humor does not tell you what happened in history.
          Opposing unwarranted Israeli attacks on US ships is not anti-Semitism.

        • TOMGILLILANatGMAIL

           It is an established fact that Israeli planes attacked the USS Liberty. What is not established is why.

          • JohnEngelman

            Whatever happened to the USS Liberty was not official Israeli policy. Friendly fire happens in all wars. 
                                     
            In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$22.2 million in 2012) as full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to the Liberty itself plus 13 years’ interest.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident 
                                                                       
            Those who dwell on this tragedy are trying to rationalize a resentment they feel for Jewish superiority in all fields requiring superior intelligence. 
             

          • Pandemonium

            Money will not bring back the dead US servicemen, nor does it explain why Israel would knowingly attack a US spy ship.

            And I reiterate my point that to call someone who criticizes an action taken by Israel as anti-semitic is to take the argument to the level of name-calling which does not advance the argument.

            I have spent a considerable amount of time in Israel working with them. I respect them as a people; that does not mean that I give them a pass regardless of what they do. 

            You seem to be blinded by your adoration when it comes to Asians, and of course, Israel is an Asian country.

          • JohnEngelman

            Pandemonium, 
            What more do you want Israel to do? “Israel” did not fire on the USS Liberty. At most a local commander made a horribly mistaken error of judgment. 

          • Marcy Fleming

             No, it has long since been proven that Israel deliberately sunk the USS Liberty because that ship was monitoring Israeli actions against Syria. It was not at all friendly fire but a war crime against an ally. To equate criticism of evil Israeli State policies with hatred of Jews qua Jews is to actually promote anti-semitism.

          • curri

            On the “friendly fire” canard:
            (…)
            One reader wrote that there are “thousands of cases of friendly fire” yet the Liberty always seems to rise to the top. I think one of the reasons it does is the circumstances of the attack never fit the mold of a typical friendly fire incident. Most such assaults are over in seconds, maybe minutes, and occur at night, in inclement weather and otherwise poor conditions. In contrast, the attack on the Liberty lasted approximately an hour and happened on a clear and sunny afternoon. The attack was exceedingly brutal, leaving 821 shell holes in the ship in addition to a 39-foot torpedo hole. Those facts have made it hard – both in 1967 and today – for many to believe it could have been simply friendly fire.
            More importantly, as we now know from declassified Israeli documents, some Israeli personnel in fact knew the Liberty was an American ship. Early in the attack an Israeli pilot radioed in the Liberty’s hull number, and that information was passed to the Israeli Navy. Others inside Israel’s chain of command also later testified that they were aware of the ship’s identity before the torpedo strike. This is unfortunate, because had Israel stopped the attack at that point more than two dozen lives would have been saved. Based on this information, Israel’s ambassador to the United States in 1967, Avraham Harman, insisted that some of the attackers be prosecuted and that American journalists be invited to cover the trial, which unfortunately never happened.
            (…)

        • curri
          • curri
          • curri

            USS Liberty witness statements: written, audio and video:
            http://www.gtr5.com/witnesses.htm 

            Engelman  should not be banned, he’s an amusing bigot. 

          • curri

            Since few will follow all those links, here’s a sample:
            http://www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm 

            WHO SAYS THE LIBERTY ATTACK WAS DELIBERATE?
            The following is a partial list of individuals and groupssupporting the position that the attack was deliberateThis is the group that Israeli supporter Ahron Jay Cristol calls “conspiracy theorists”
            “I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.” 
                  – US Secretary of State Dean Rusk”Accidents don’t occur through repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept the Israeli explanation.”
                  – US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Recorded interview, http://www.ussliberty.org“…the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty.”
                  — CIA Director Richard Helms in his book A Look Over my Shoulder”It was no accident.” 
                  – CIA Director Richard Helms in interview for Navy Times, 6/26/2002. Asked to say more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of his life testifying in court about the attack.”To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that the Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway, either through confusion in Command and Control or through deliberate disregard of instructions on the part of subordinates.” 
                  — CIA Deputy Director Admiral Rufus TaylorThat the attack was deliberate “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the National Security Agency
                  — Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute ProceedingsFormer NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman “flatly rejected” the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident
                  — 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings”I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American.”
                  – Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff writing for Americans for Middle East Understanding, June 8, 1997″To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn’t identify the ship is … ridiculous. … Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument.”
                  – Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14″To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway.” 
                  – Admiral Rufus Taylor, Deputy CIA director, as quoted by CIA director Admiral Rufus Taylor in A Look Over My Shoulder.Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate
                  — David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings”That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable”
                  – Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson”Inconceivable that it was an accident � 3 strafing passes, 3 torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible” 
                  – Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson, in Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967″A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted].” 
                  — Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. Dr. Tordella expressed the view that the attack was deliberate and that the Israeli government attempted to cover it up to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal memorandum for the record. He noted “a nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept (redacted)” in the margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack as noted in the NSA Gerhard report 1982)”The attack was clearly deliberate.” 
                  – General Marshall Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a telephone interview with James Ennes”The attack was deliberate” 
                  – Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor, as keynote speaker for 1982 USS Liberty reunion.”My immediate reaction was it was not an accident. It had to be a deliberate attack.” 
                  – Lucius Battle, in BBC Documentary “Dead in the Water”.”….did not buy the Israeli ‘mistake’ explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation.” When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. “That would be enough,” he said. “They wouldn’t want us in on that. You’ve got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do.” 
                  – Major General John Morrison, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations as reported in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233.”I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that they knew they were attacking an American ship.”
                  – Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency. Kirby participated in NSA’s investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is considered the “Godfather” of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)On the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots’ conversations during the attack, the question of the attack’s deliberateness “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the agency.
                  – Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency, interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003Inman said he “flatly rejected” the Cristol thesis that the attack was an accident. “It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly identified” based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA official could be found who dissented from the “deliberate” conclusion.
                  – Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN, Director National Security Agency 1977-1981, reported in Proceedings, June, 2003″I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was.” 
                  – Paul C. Warnke, Undersecretary of the Navy and later general legal counsel to the Department of Defense.”In many years, I have wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity. . . .   I think it is about time that the State of Israel and the United States government provide the crew members of the Liberty, and the rest of the American people, the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was attacked 30 years ago today.” Later, McGonagle remarked, “USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving large loss of life…that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing.” 
                  – Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery June 8, 1997.”The Israelis told us 24 hours before that …if we didn’t move it, they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved, and by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water.” 
                  – John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3Im in an address to the AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday, April 16, 2003State Department Legal Advisor and author of highly critical detailed analysis of the Israeli excuse in telephone interview from his home in France, Mr. Salans described the attack as deliberate. 
                  – Legal Advisor Carl SalansWalter Deeley, NSA department head, conducted still-classified investigation of the attack and remarked later in telephone interview that he regards the attack as deliberate. 
                  – NSA Department Head Walter Deeley”The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it ‘inconceivable’ that Israel’s ‘skilled’ defense forces could have committed such a gross error.” 
                  — Lyndon Johnson’s biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.
                  — Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor”The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack…was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew…. It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident…. I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American.”
                  — Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of InquiryAccording to Kidd’s legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, USN, Kidd discussed with him his belief that the attackers were aware they were attacking an American ship. The Court ruled otherwise because they were so directed by Washington.
                  — Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Navy Court of Inquiry, as reported in Navy Times, 6/26/2002″I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship.”
                  – Captain Ward Boston, legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, as reported in . Navy Times, 6/26/2002″No one in the White House believed that the attack was an accident.” 
                  – George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson in letter to James Ennes, 1978.After reviewing the Court of Inquiry in his official capacity as legal counsel to the convening authority, concluded that the evidence did not support the findings that the attack was an accident and declined to recommend that his Commander sign and forward it to Washington.
                  – Rear Admiral (then captain) Merlin Staring, Staff Legal Office for Commander in Chief US Naval Forces Europe and later Chief Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Statement to Navy Times, 3 June 2002 and elsewhere”This book [Assault on the Liberty] gives convincing evidence that the attack was deliberate and that the facts, including the Navy’s bungling before and during the attack, were covered up.”
                  – United States Senator Adlai E. Stevenson III as reported in Congressional Record — Senate S13136 September 23, 1980. Senator Stevenson later announced his interest in holding Congressional hearings on the attack. He pointed out that the survivors have been consistent in their accounts of what happened and that the attack was, in his word, “premeditated.” Also reported by William J. Small, United Press International, September 28, 1980.”The Congress never investigated this matter, and I don’t detect much enthusiasm for getting into it now.” 
                  – Senator Adlai Stevenson III in letter to James Ennes dated September 9, 1980″From what I have read, I can’t tolerate for one minute that this was an accident! … What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid, so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned, that we will take the killing of 37 (sic) American boys and the wounding of a lot more and the attack on an American ship in the open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: ‘Oh, well, boys will be boys.’ What are you going to do about it? It is most offensive to me!
                  – Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of July 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1967.”I have read the Navy investigation of the Liberty, and the evidence adduced there, and I have read the Israeli court of inquiry records, and based upon their own records of the investigation, I cannot agree that it was accidental.”
                  – Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of May, 1968, Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1968, page 444.”American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens. . . . The Liberty’s presence and function were well known to Israel’s leaders. …Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything. 
                  – George Ball, under secretary of state at the time writing in The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.”I don’t think that there’s any doubt that it was deliberate…. [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history.” 
                  – David G. Nes, the deputy head of the American mission in Cairo at the time”FBI officials counter that ‘friendly’ spying can be as damaging as spying for enemies, they note, as in 1967 when Israeli jets deliberately attacked the electronic intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty….” 
                  – FBI Officials reported in Washington Times, November 26, 1998″How much better if Congress would….call to account those who were involved in spreading lies about the tragedy.” 
                  – James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins in Special Report, The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December, 1999″The attack was deliberate and not an accident.” 
                  – Victor Ostrovsky, author and former Mossad officer, in telephone conversations with former Congressman Pete McCloskey October 10, 1991, and with and several conversations with James Ennes.”It’s an American ship!” the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter-bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to attack the American ship. 
                  – former US Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter describing transcripts of communications he saw, reported in syndicated column “Remembering the Liberty” by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.”The historical event which took place in June 1967 can hardly be called enigmatic and mysterious. …It is difficult to understand that the Israelis could not identity the USSLiberty, since the ship had a unique antenna and equipment and especially since the Israelis had identified the ship with long term observation.” 
                  – Translated from a taped interview with Sergeev Oleg Korneevitch, retired Colonel, Soviet GRU.”The government of Israel intentionally attacked the ship. …The attack was not legally justified. …(there were) two further violations of international law…the use of unmarked military aircraft (and)…the wanton destruction of life rafts.” 
                  – Walter L. Jacobsen, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, in Naval Law Review, Vol 36, Winter 1986″The attack was not an accident.” 
                  – Stephen Green, author. Antelope Valley Press, April 5, 1984″Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship’s identity. …The public, however, was kept in the dark. Even before the American public learned of the attack, U.S. government officials began to promote an account satisfactory to Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee worked through Congressmen to keep the story under control. The President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, ordered and led a cover-up so thorough that years after he left office the episode is still largely unknown….” 
                  – Paul Findley, author and former Member of Congress 1961-1983 in They Dare to Speak Out, by Paul Findley, 1985, page 166″Is the Liberty episode being erased from history. So it would seem…What has happened to our prying journalistic corps and our editors, normally so indignant of attempted suppression of the news?…We believe that a joint select committee of Congress should investigate the strange case of the USS Liberty…” 
                  – William F. Buckley, journalist and publisher, National Review, June 27, 1967(In a review of “Six Days of War” by Michael Oren.) “Oren…frequently descends to vulgar propaganda. Deeming the Israeli combined air and naval assault on the USS Liberty…an accident,’ Oren rehashes official Israeli tales and embellishes them with his own whoppers.” 
                  – Norman Finkelstein, PhD, author, professor of political science, DePaul University, writing in Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring, 2003, p85″The attack on the USS Liberty was planned and there is and was a cover-up.” “If the very valuable lessons of the Liberty were known, the capture of the USS Pueblo could not have happened.” 
                  – Lloyd M. “Pete” Bucher, US Navy, Commanding Officer USS Pueblo when captured by North Korea in January 1968, in telephone conversations with James Ennes and on September 6, 2002, with Richard Schmucker.”Nearly everyone who is not affiliated with Israel…and who has seriously looked into the attack believes that it was deliberate. …The bare facts of the attack rule out any other conclusion.” 
                  – Donald Neff, author, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August, 2002, p29Ralph Hoppe, Colonel, US Army, retired, reports that dozens of intelligence reports soon after the attack described the attack as deliberate including a “consensus report” which summarized the collective view of the US intelligence community. Soon orders came from Washington to collect and destroy all such reports. Nothing more in official channels described the attack as deliberate. 
                  – Aerotech News and Review, March 2, 2001, by John Borne, PhD, and conversations with James Ennes”It is clear that the Israelis knew that they were attacking a vessel of the US Navy, especially as it was flying a large Stars and Stripes at the time. The fact that they spent six hours reconnoitering and executing the attack, which included machine-gunning the lifeboats, attests to the deadly intent of the operation. 
                  – Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, the Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship, by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, p152.”A. Jay Cristol’s virtual minority of one assessment is not supported by the detailed non-technical common sense evidence to the contrary in Body of Secrets (by James Bamford). “There is nothing surprising in Bamford’s conclusion that the attack was deliberate. Liberty survivors have made that case convincingly for years.” 
                  – Professor Hayden Peake, author, former CIA officer and member, Association of Former Intelligence Officers, The Intelligencer, Vol. 12, No.1, Summer 2001Book reviews transcripts of communications during the attack which establish that the attack was deliberate. 
                  – Israel’s Wars, 1947-1993, by Ahron BregmanSurvivors of the attack are unanimous in their conviction that the attack was deliberate. Among other things, their belief is based upon the intense pre-attack reconnaissance, the fact that the firing continued from close range long after the attackers examined the ship and its markings from a few feet away, and because the Israeli version of events as reported to the United States is grossly untrue. 
                  – USS Liberty survivorsSeveral Air Force intelligence analysts who have come forward to report that they saw real-time transcripts of communications from the attacking forces which show clearly that they were aware they were attacking an American ship. Others who saw these transcripts include Dwight Porter and Oliver Kirby, mentioned above, and several top officials of the American intelligence community.
                  – Former US Air Force intelligence analysts Ron Gotcher, Steve Forslund, Richard Block and pilot Charles TiffanyPublished doctoral thesis establishes that the attack was deliberate.
                  – John Borne, PhD, adjunct professor of history, NY University.Rejects the US Navy Court of Inquiry as inadequate, declares that the attack was apparently deliberate, and calls upon the United States to conduct a complete and thorough investigation.
                  – Resolution #508 of the American Legion at its 49th annual national convention in August, 1967″The [Navy Court of Inquiry] leaves a good many questions unanswered.” 
                  – The New York Times, July 1, 1967″The naval inquiry is not good enough.” 
                  – The Washington Post, June 30, 1967″They must have known…that Liberty was an American ship.” 
                  – The Washington Star, June 30, 1967″The action was planned in advance” 
                  – Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson in The Washington Post, June 30, 1967″Only the blind or the trigger happy could have made such a mistake” 
                  – The National Observer”The attack was deliberate. Those responsible should be court-martialed on charges of murder.” 
                  – California Congressman Craig Hosmer in the Congressional Record–House, June 29, 1967, p. 17893″How can this be treated so lightly? What complaint have we registered? 
                  – Mississippi Congressman Thomas G. Abernethy in the Congressional Record–House, June 29m, 1967, pp. 17894-5″Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who knew the ship’s identity. …The President of the United States led a cover-up so thorough that years after he left office, the episode was still largely unknown to the public — and the men who suffered and died have gone largely unhonored.” 
                  – Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out, Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985, p166″Nearly as bizarre as the attack itself was the reaction of the American government to the incident. A foreign nation had butchered American servicemen, sending thirty-four to their graves… A virtually unarmed American naval ship in international waters was shot at, strafed with rockets, torpedoed, set on fire…then left to sink as crazed gunners shot up the life rafts. The foreign nation then says, sorry about that, and offers an explanation so outrageous that it is insulting, and the American government accepts it, sweeps the whole affair under a rug, then classifies as top secret nearly all details concerning it.” 
                  – James Bamford, author, “The Puzzle Palace”The story has been hushed up.”       – Louisiana Congressman John R. Rarick in the Congressional Record–House, September 19, 1967, pp. 12170-6

             Return to the USS Liberty opening page

            Jim Ennes and Joe MeadorsUSS Liberty

          • Marcy Fleming

             Thanks. A brilliant summation.

          • JohnEngelman

            With the exception of the last link these are blogs by obscure people. The first blames Israel for the Six Day War. 

          • curri

            Everyone here is obscure-including you.  You can’t argue the facts so you use 
            ad hominem . 

            But if you want the argument from authority:

            “I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”       – US Secretary of State Dean RuskAccidents don’t occur through repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept the Israeli explanation.”      – US Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Recorded interview, http://www.ussliberty.org“…the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty.”
                  — CIA Director Richard Helms in his book A Look Over my Shoulder”It was no accident.” 
                  – CIA Director Richard Helms in interview for Navy Times, 6/26/2002. Asked to say more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of his life testifying in court about the attack.”To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that the Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway, either through confusion in Command and Control or through deliberate disregard of instructions on the part of subordinates.” 
                  — CIA Deputy Director Admiral Rufus TaylorThat the attack was deliberate “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the National Security Agency
                  — Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute ProceedingsFormer NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman “flatly rejected” the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident
                  — 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings”I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American.”
                  – Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff writing for Americans for Middle East Understanding, June 8, 1997″To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn’t identify the ship is … ridiculous. … Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument.”
                  – Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14″To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway.”       – Admiral Rufus Taylor, Deputy CIA director, as quoted by CIA director Admiral Rufus Taylor in A Look Over My Shoulder.”Inconceivable that it was an accident � 3 strafing passes, 3 torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible” 
                  – Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson, in Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967″A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted].” 
                  — Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. Dr. Tordella expressed the view that the attack was deliberate and that the Israeli government attempted to cover it up to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal memorandum for the record. He noted “a nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept (redacted)” in the margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack as noted in the NSA Gerhard report 1982)”The attack was clearly deliberate.”       – General Marshall Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a telephone interview with James Ennes”….did not buy the Israeli ‘mistake’ explanations either. Nobody believes that explanation.” When informed by author Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs) at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. “That would be enough,” he said. “They wouldn’t want us in on that. You’ve got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do.” 
                  – Major General John Morrison, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations as reported in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, p233.”I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that they knew they were attacking an American ship.”
                  – Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production, National Security Agency. Kirby participated in NSA’s investigation of the attack and reviewed translations of intercepted communications between pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is considered the “Godfather” of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)On the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots’ conversations during the attack, the question of the attack’s deliberateness “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the agency.
                  – Lieutenant General William E. Odom, former director, National Security Agency, interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval Institute Proceedings, June, 2003Inman said he “flatly rejected” the Cristol thesis that the attack was an accident. “It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly identified” based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA official could be found who dissented from the “deliberate” conclusion.
                  – Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN, Director National Security Agency 1977-1981, reported in Proceedings, June, 2003″I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was.” 
                  – Paul C. Warnke, Undersecretary of the Navy and later general legal counsel to the Department of Defense.”In many years, I have wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity. . . .   I think it is about time that the State of Israel and the United States government provide the crew members of the Liberty, and the rest of the American people, the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was attacked 30 years ago today.” Later, McGonagle remarked, “USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign nation, involving large loss of life…that has never been accorded a full Congressional hearing.” 
                  – Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery June 8, 1997.”The Israelis told us 24 hours before that …if we didn’t move it, they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved, and by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water.”       – John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3Im in an address to the AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday, April 16, 2003″No one in the White House believed that the attack was an accident.”       – George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson in letter to James Ennes, 1978.From what I have read, I can’t tolerate for one minute that this was an accident! … What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid, so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned, that we will take the killing of 37 (sic) American boys and the wounding of a lot more and the attack on an American ship in the open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: ‘Oh, well, boys will be boys.’ What are you going to do about it? It is most offensive to me!
                  – Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of July 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1967.”I have read the Navy investigation of the Liberty, and the evidence adduced there, and I have read the Israeli court of inquiry records, and based upon their own records of the investigation, I cannot agree that it was accidental.”
                  – Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of May, 1968, Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1968, page 444.”American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens. . . . The Liberty’s presence and function were well known to Israel’s leaders. …Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.       – George Ball, under secretary of state at the time writing in The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.”It’s an American ship!” the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter-bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to attack the American ship.       – former US Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter describing transcripts of communications he saw, reported in syndicated column “Remembering the Liberty” by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.”Nearly as bizarre as the attack itself was the reaction of the American government to the incident. A foreign nation had butchered American servicemen, sending thirty-four to their graves… A virtually unarmed American naval ship in international waters was shot at, strafed with rockets, torpedoed, set on fire…then left to sink as crazed gunners shot up the life rafts. The foreign nation then says, sorry about that, and offers an explanation so outrageous that it is insulting, and the American government accepts it, sweeps the whole affair under a rug, then classifies as top secret nearly all details concerning it.”       – James Bamford, author, “The Puzzle Palace”

          • curri

            The Ball quote was somewhat garbled:
            American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens. . . . The Liberty’s presence and function were well known to Israel’s leaders. …Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything. 
                  – George Ball, under secretary of state at the time writing in The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, pages 57-58.

          • curri

            I’m not sure what your standards are, but does this guy meet them:
            “A. Jay Cristol’s virtual minority of one assessment is not supported by the detailed non-technical common sense evidence to the contrary in Body of Secrets (by James Bamford). “There is nothing surprising in Bamford’s conclusion that the attack was deliberate. Liberty survivors have made that case convincingly for years.”       – Professor Hayden Peake, author, former CIA officer and member, Association of Former Intelligence Officers, The Intelligencer, Vol. 12, No.1, Summer 2001

          • curri

            If these guys are alive I hope you have the cojones to contact them and call them liars:
            Several Air Force intelligence analysts who have come forward to report that they saw real-time transcripts of communications from the attacking forces which show clearly that they were aware they were attacking an American ship. Others who saw these transcripts include Dwight Porter and Oliver Kirby, mentioned above, and several top officials of the American intelligence community.      – Former US Air Force intelligence analysts Ron Gotcher, Steve Forslund, Richard Block and pilot 
            Charles Tiffany

          • curri

            Here’s Admiral Thomas Moorer:
            http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer2004.htm 
            A FAIR PROBE WOULD ATTACK LIBERTY MISINFORMATION
            by Thomas MoorerWhile State Department officials and historians converge on Washington this week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out about one of U.S. history’s most shocking cover-ups.On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship — the USS Liberty — killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed and left to die by our own government.U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled — not once, but twice — through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s cancellation of the Navy’s attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal hearings on Israel’s attack on this American ship. No official investigation of the attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members.A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel’s attack was “a case of mistaken identity.”Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. They include:Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship. Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty’s radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded.As a result, our commission concluded that:
            There is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only be termed a national disgrace.What was Israel’s motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the CIA and the military intelligence services.The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss of our best intelligence ship.These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no defense.Did our government put Israel’s interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests? These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent, fully empowered commission of the American government.The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history. It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States.—Adm. Thomas Moorer was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974 and once was 7th Fleet commander. He is joined in the Independent Commission of Inquiry by Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, former judge advocate general of the Navy; and Ambassador James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Gen. Ray Davis, former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, was a member of the commission at the time of his death in September. For complete findings and the sworn affidavit of Capt. Ward Boston, go to http://www.ussliberty.org

          • Marcy Fleming

             Read carefully the responses below. A list of decidedly not obscure people in government have condemned the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty.

      • Ingsoc

        curri:  Thanks for the links and other info.  It’s important to get this information out to the American public.

        Israel has a long history of false flag operations including the Lavon Affair in which Jewish operatives in Egypt attempted to blow up American and British buildings and place blame on the Egyptians, with the desire that Americans and British seek vengeance against Egypt.  The agents were captured before the bombs blew up.

        Another subversive technique the Israelis use to is called “laying the mental threads” which employs game theory to get others to fight your enemies for you.  Sound familiar?
        Why are Americans “fighting” in Afghanistan, Iraq and considering an attack on Iran, countries that are no threat to the American people?– but are to Israel.  It’s OK to vilify and portray Arabs as mortal enemies of the American people.

    • Marcy Fleming

       Let’s get real, there are no sacred cows anymore nor are there any ‘Orientals.’ There are widely varying Asians of different intelligences and values.
      Nor are Woody Allen, Robert Reich, Bella Abzug, et al, proof of Ashkenazim biological superiority ! You write as if east Asians and Jews were all one indiscriminate lump.
      There are as many undesirables among these vast categories as there are in most other groupings.  Your objection is very narrow and lacks principle.

      • JohnEngelman

        Woody Allen, Robert Reich, Bella Abzug each have IQs considerably above average. 

        • Marcy Fleming

           No evidence for that at all. Abzug is a distant cousin and was in the CPUSA for years before she got elected to Congress. She her switched on position on Phantom jets for Israel just to get elected in 1970.
          Allen had some memorable lines in Annie Hall but nothing very original
          as he has admitted. Reich is a third rate academic hack who got the Cabinet he was a Friend Of Bill (FOB).

          • http://www.amren.com/ Moderator

            Impractical in that case, because I would have to be deleting a lot of responses. Upstairs wasn’t really happy when certain threads got so out of control that I wiped out all the comments, and made it amply clear that that sort of thing should be done as little as possible.

          • razorrare

            This liar censored 5 of my posts last night.

          • JohnEngelman

            Robert Bernard Reich…                        
            is currently Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was formerly a professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government[3] and professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. He has also been a contributing editor of The New Republic, The American Prospect (also chairman and founding editor), Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal.    
                         
            Reich is a political commentator on programs including Hardball with Chris Matthews, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, CNBC’s Kudlow & Company, and APM’s Marketplace. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the century,[4] and The Wall Street Journal in 2008 placed him sixth on its list of the “Most Influential Business Thinkers”.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
                                                                    
            Woody Allen has won four Academy Awards: three Best Original Screenplays (Annie Hall (1978, shared withMarshall Brickman), Hannah and Her Sisters (1987) and Midnight in Paris (2012)), and one Best Director (Annie Hall (1978)). Allen has been nominated a total of 23 times: 15 as a screenwriter, seven as a director, and once as an actor.[68] He has more screenwritingAcademy Award nominations than any other writer; all are in the Best Original Screenplay category. He is tied for third all-time with seven Best Directornominations.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen#Academy_Awards
                                   
             Bella Abzug graduated from Walton High School in New York City, where she was class president[2], and went on to Hunter College of the City University of New York, later earning a law degree from Columbia University in 1947.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Abzug 
                   
                    
            Those achievements require industrial strength IQ power, which is a racial characteristic of the Ashkenazim.  

          • Pandemonium

            Many geniuses wallow their way through life.  

            Most good things in life are attainable by most people. And by definition, most people have average IQs. 

            IQ, after all, is not the measure of the man (or woman).

            One would think that the “issue” of IQ had been long settled here. 

            Find something besides IQ to worship. 

        • Pandemonium

          Good God man, there is more to life than IQ!!!!!!!

          • JohnEngelman

            Those who gloat about lower IQs for blacks and Hispanics seem to resent being told about higher scores for Jews and Orientals. 

          • Pandemonium

            I have never “gloated” about lower IQs for any peoples. 

            It is behavior that I have problems with.

            My point is that you seem fixated on the IQ issue. As I wrote earlier, find something else to worship. 

            Additionally, so what if “Jews and Orentals” have an average IQ above Whites. What’s your point???

    • Marcy Fleming

       No Asian describes him or her self as ‘Oriental.’ They regard it as patronizing and condescending. Jews vary as much as Asians do and neither group is a sacred cow.

      • JohnEngelman

        Professor J. Philippe Rushton, who has spoken at American Renaissance conferences, uses the word “Oriental” in his essay, “Race, Evolution, and Behavior.”
        http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf 
                                       
        I use the word “Oriental” to refer to Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Tibetans.” “Asian” can refer to Caucasians such as Arabs, and the inhabitants of India. 
                                                                         
        I suppose I could use “Mongoloid,” but that word can also refer to those who have Down’s Syndrome.         
         
        As Professor Rushton explains in his essay, Orientals tend to have higher IQs than Caucasians. They also have lower rates of crime and illegitimacy. That is why I admire them, and why in the United States they are sometimes called “the ideal minority.” Several of my best male friends, and several girl friends have been Orientals. They never complained about my use of that word to describe them. 

  • Pandemonium

    This writing by Professor Waldron typifies the “fuzzy minded intellectual”, “pointy-headed intellectual”, and the “ivory tower intellectual”.

    These people live and work in a bubble wherein they associate only with others of their kind. Consequently, all of their “hair-brained” ideas get approving nods from their peers.

    An earlier poster hit the nail on the head when positing that professor Waldron probably has never been “on the street” with most minorities. Waldron lives his life completely within the ivy-covered walls of academia.

    Waldron’s illogic, as displayed by Taylor, remind me of the idea that “these ideas are so insane, only an academic could think them up”.

    Waldron apparently needs to “get out” a little more often. 

    The scary part is that the Waldrons of the world are part of that dangerous feed-back loop of Academia, Government, Think tanks, and Policy Makers.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    Jeremy Waldron is NYU Law.  As bad as the Ivy League is, Harvard only published this book.  NYU is probably pound for pound the most obnoxious school in American academia.

    Waldron seems like the kind of beta male dweeb that would sue a nightclub for having ladies nights.

    • robinbishop34

       “NYU is probably pound for pound the most obnoxious school in American academia.”

      Worse than Columbia?

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        Notice I said “pound for pound.”  Columbia is an Ivy school, so you know it’s bad.  NYU flies under the radar.

  • Kevin W. Cornell

    I’m amazed Jared Taylor even bothered to read and critique Waldron’s book, as it seems like a real migraine-inducing nightmare. I suspect Jared downed a few after he was done with this article and then picked up a book he’ll actually enjoy.

    • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

      I read black publications and I listen to black talk radio. I like to know what they’re saying so I can counter their (generally feeble) arguments.

      The Art of War: Know Your Enemy.

      • http://www.amren.com/ Moderator

        This is why we allow the occasional non-threatening leftist.  They’re our vaccine, so to speak.  We have to know what they’re thinking so we can generate white blood cells (counter arguments) to have handy.

  • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

    Someone quipped, “Of course we all know that such nonsense would never be realized in America.”

    My response: Think back 50 years to 1962. 

    What if, in that year, someone said that the nation would be $16 trillion in debt, homosexual marriage would legalized in several states, illegal aliens would be given amnesty, the percentage of non-white new births would exceed new white births, and religious speech would be banned from public schools and religious displays on public property would be illegal?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/MXTYFQZUWU2C7Q6WAHYPNNHCNU David Brims

      You forgot to mention a half cast Kenyan in the White House.

      • http://www.dailykenn.com/ Daily Kenn

        edited

      • Marcy Fleming

         He did mention a Black in the White House. Obama is not Kenyan, his father was.

    • razorrare

      “Homosexual marriage will be legalized in several states.”
      Expressions of disgust grace the faces of nearly everyone in the crowd.
      “Homosexual marriage will be endorsed by the President of the United States.

      How ironic it is that this Peter the Prophet failed to foretell how in 2012 an amren moderator would censor posts concerning usage of words or terms that are even accepted as being politically correct..like the Q word and the F word concerning homosexuals.

  • http://twitter.com/curiousquisling Jared

    I am convinced that if you supres free speech and the free exchange of ideas, those ideas won’t disappear, but rather rise up in a more asocial and even violent form.  Sexuality did not disappear during the Victorian era. The black market did not vanish under Soviet Socialism.  Racialism and tribalism will not go away simply because we deny it is there and criminalize its expression.  It is foolish to make laws against human nature.

    Q.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lucas-Evans/100001091600634 Lucas Evans

      Yes, the left doesn’t seem to realize that silencing your opponents is not the same as defeating your opponents. 

      • Pandemonium

        Agree, but silencing your opponents can be extremely effective. Political Correctness has gone a long way toward instituting devastating tactics/strategies against us.

        And PC is simply the “silencing” of arguments which are counter to a policy desired by the elites.

        For example, in “polite” society, one dare not espouse segregation of the races. That’s pc in action. 

        Logic and reason must stand outside while pc is ushered to the best table in the house.

      • SLCain

         No, but it is an important part of defeating your opponents.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/YL6T3BJRP7N3DDTPORHM2J2GFQ Chris R; Something Clever

      I was thinking the same thing.  They have to silence us to keep the facade going because the diversity/multicult experiment is a house of cards and the cards are starting to fall.

       ”Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
      JFK

  • http://twitter.com/curiousquisling Jared

    I am convinced that if you supres free speech and the free exchange of ideas, those ideas won’t disappear, but rather rise up in a more asocial and even violent form.  Sexuality did not disappear during the Victorian era. The black market did not vanish under Soviet Socialism.  Racialism and tribalism will not go away simply because we deny it is there and criminalize its expression.  It is foolish to make laws against human nature.
    Q.

  • curri

    This book is being discussed all over the web.  Here’s the best comment I found while conducting a brief overview of what’s available:
    http://overlawyered.com/2012/07/fourth-july-thought/ 
    “Anonymous Attorney 07.05.12 at 12:28 pm
    I wish I could get more excited. The sensitivity/censorship culture in America and Britain is fairly parallel. There are plenty of examples in which it’s just as hard to exercise free speech in America even if you don’t face jail. In our “free” country,* An atheist who puts up a billboard in Pennsylvania showing that the Bible condoned slavery will be hit with 1) massive protests, 2) media frenzy, 3) heavy pressure on the billboard renter to pull it down — and he may do so 4) vandalism to the sign that isn’t likely to be followed up too vigorously by the police, 5) death threats, 6) job loss.* A company that declines to make gay pride T-shirts will be hit with a “Human Relations Comission” complaint and have to shell out money for a lawyer even if they eventually prevail.* A person who advertises a room for rent on a white separatist website will be hit with a “fair housing” complaint and dragged through that process, and the site will be forced to take down the ad. Heavy civil penalties to follow.* Holocaust doubters seeking to meet in a restaurant may be 1) refused admission by the owners or 2) physically attacked by opponents, and the attackers ignored by federal authorities who would surely pursue with vigor a group of neo-Nazis who attacked a gathering of Holocaust survivors.* A conservative speaker invited to a college campus is physically attacked, or the college pulls the invitation due to “security concerns”.* A gathering of white “race realists” seeks to meet in a hotel, but threats are made to the hotel, which cancels the hosting contract, and police do nothing about it. The heckler’s veto, writ large. Oh, and you won’t hear about it in the newspaper.* An atheist who dresses as “Zombie Muhammad” will be attacked physically, and his attacker set free by a judge who seeks to protect Muslim dignity.I guess the bottom line is that you have free speech in America, unless you’re an atheist, white separatist, or Ann Coulter at Wesleyan.”

    • razorrare

      .
      I guess the bottom line is that you have free speech in America, unless you’re an atheist…

      Really? Its been my observation that atheist are granted more freedom of speech than Christians…even on the pages of Amren,atheist post are more likely to survive than Christian ones

      • curri

        I reformatted that post so it would be easier to read and understand.  Apparently you had read the early part of it, saw the word “atheist,”and had some sort of attack.  Be that as it may, it should be noted that today most self-styled Christians  in the US are racial egalitarians.  Many more are clearly heretical Christian Zionists who think it was a fine thing that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty in international waters and murdered 34 US sailors and Marines and-with the indispensable help of the traitor LBJ-got away with it scott-free.  

        • razorrare

          Be that as it may,it should be noted that today most self-styled Christians in the US are racial egalitarians…
           
          Who among us can say that we have never been decieved…whether its body politics,institutions of higher learning,or the Church–Change agents have infiltrated all…Biblical prophecys say as much…we are in the End Times…
           
          I responded to your original post because of the clear bias directed at Christians–did atheist such as  yourself protest the NEA(National Endowment of the Arts) for putting on display a crucifix of Christ in a bottle of urine,in which in part was funded by u.s.  taxpayers,whether they be Christians or non-Christians? Plenty of other examples i could give that would show your assessment of the power of the Church  to censor views popular or unpopular is simply not factually correct.Western culture is in its death throes because Christianity is being replaced with New Age & NWO  ideology…
           
          For a better understanding i invite  you & others  to visit this site…
           
          http://watch.pair.com/default.html
           
           

          • Marcy Fleming

             Christianity started as a dissident Jewish cult, then later evolved into state power in decaying Rome and guess who the first targets were ? Jews. The fact is that you can find much more support for statist-collectivist-socialist-communist ideas in The Bible than for capitalism and individual rights.
            One of the numbskulls over at the Rothbardian anarchist cult, Lew Rockwell, has actually written a 20,000 pages (!) book with the theme that the Bible endorses free enterprise. Unbelievable.
            But then what else can you expect from the libertarians and Ron Paul Cultists ?

          • razorrare

            Christianity started as a result of Christ rejecting Judaism…

            But i shall not respond further…your credibility is suspect…

            When I lived there in israel I found Ethiopian Jews and Palestinian Arabs far preferable to the Ashkenazim males for intelligent conversation and dating…conversation over.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Razorrare, your comments below are bereft of any reasoned argument, just arguable assertions.
            How could one have a conversation with you ?

  • JJDKII

    As  C.S. Lewis said: ”
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  • Skipper

    Similar to aggressive animals awaiting any opportunity to achieve the final kill the cultural Marxists are circling the West testing our defenses it to see if they can nullify the most important weapon in the West’s arsenal …. freedom of speech.  If they achieve this goal by the passing of “hate speech laws” that will be enforced per their selective Marxist orientation then the strength of the “counter revolutionaries” will be severely crippled in the Western nations. 

    One slip of the tongue, or one errant phrase per their perverse rules would lead to criminal prosecution, loss of employment, and public damnation.  Just look at the legal prosecutions against Geert Wilders and various people in Britain if you believe I am exaggerating.  Will it be only a matter of time before these “laws” are not only applied to current speech but previously published works as well?  Ironically, will Fahrenheit 451 be transformed from a prophetic novel about a future repressive society to avoid into a “how to” manual for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice?

  • AmRem

    breaking glass houses is my personal hobby 

  • godzillabloggs

    The message is that diversity is not compatible with free speech.  The activist/academic should have taken his argument further and pointed out that honest reporting and freedom to pursue scientific research on certain topics also have no place in a diverse society.

    • KenelmDigby

      If ‘diversity is not compatible with free speech’, then free speech, being the highest value should stay, and ‘diversity’ should go. 

  • KenelmDigby

    The British, for instance, already have to put up with the Orwellian tyranny Waldron recommends – how many poor saps have been flung in jail for uttering something untoward on their twitter accounts?

  • Marcy Fleming

     It’s the leading newspaper in Israel.

  • JustaWhiteMom

    JT this was a great review and made excellent points.  Why don’t you post it at amazon.com?  Or at least a portion of it with a plug for your website? 

  • SLCain

    I belive that living in a nation inhabited by people with ethnically similar backgrounds to me is of great value.  It minimizes the social friction that accompanies a multicultural country, where people don’t know each others’ customs and cultures, and therefore don’t trust one another.  Why is this not considered a public good?  Why is my right to the public good of living in a nation built by my kind not as worthy to Professor Waldron as the imagined right of foreigners to reside in someone else’s country, where they don’t belong.

    In fact, the public good that I am speaking of was the norm in this country, was widely accepted as being self-evident, and leads to demonstrably better societies than the so-called public good that he is defending.  And based on the empirical evidence alone, that is a “settled fact”, not open to debate.  Waldron should go somewhere where the law is more to his liking – Cuba, perhaps – and leave MY nation alone.

  • Marcy Fleming

     Big deal ! it’s not Muslims who are promoting the Israel First lobby in DC and it’s endless wars.

  • http://twitter.com/selebaster mike

    excellent article thanks

  • Marcy Fleming

     Do you think if you so described Christianity or Judaism that you would go uncensored here ?  I wrote that Muslims are not backing the US Israeli
    blank check policies in the Near East and that comment got censored !

  • Marcy Fleming

     This patronizing nonsense about ‘Orientals’ needs to stop. Mao killed over 110 million people. Genghis Khan over 120 million, Pol Pot over three million, half of Cambodia, Ho killed millions and at least five million were killed in North Korea.
    Remember the Bataan death marches and that most of WW2 deaths were caused by the Japanese in China ? Chiang Kai-Check killed 10-15 million. Sukarno’s Reds in Indonesia and the anti-communist coup in 1965 killed millions more.
    Burma’s Reds have killed millions as have Laotian Communists.
    This is the superior Oriental civilization ?
    Gary Locke, Obama’s Chinese-Americam Ambassador to Beijung, advocated outlawing the term ‘Oriental’ in Washington State when he was Governor there as ‘racist’ ! The Chinese gangs here in San Francisco are vicious.
    And in fact IQs greatly vary between Koreans, Japanese, Mandarin vs. Cantonese Chinese and Viets, Cambodians, Laotians, etc.
    One commentator here who posited superior ‘Orientals’ is out to lunch and most of these ‘Orientals’ vote Demo as do Blacks and Latins.
    No, blank check immigration from ‘Orientals’ is a terrible idea. Period.

    • ViktorNN

      Thanks for your comment. I’m quite weary of the Asian-philes on Amren. Fine, they’re a model minority at least compared to hispanics or blacks – I still rather they stayed in Asia. An Asian can best be my ally by buying a ticket back to the land of his forbears. Sayonara!

      • Pandemonium

        Could not agree more! After all, isn’t this site supposed to be a place for Whites to come together and discuss OUR issues?

        Why we have to constantly read about the “superiority” of this group or that group makes the word “troll” pop into my head all the time. 

        It’s as though some posters here want to show that their affinity for the “other” groups somehow makes them “better” than the rest of us “haters”. Reminds me of the people who voted for Obama to “prove” that they were not racist. This is the classic liberal mindset of constantly doing things that “show” the world that you are better because of your “high-mindedness”. 

        Well, what these people fail to realize is that most of us here are not haters at all. We simply love our own people and want the best possible world for our progeny.

      • Marcy Fleming

         Thanks, Viktor. Glad I’m not the only one fed up of this condescending, patronizing attitude towards the so-called
        ‘model minority.’ Which is an urban legend.
        On Hollywood Neil Gabler, who is Jewish, published a book in the late 80s which shows how we Jews indeed created Hollywood and indeed practiced affirmative action for our loinsmen.
        Considering that 99.99% of what comes out of Hollywood is leftism, nihilism or just plain trash I wouldn’t use that example as proof of our biological superiority ! Engelman must consider his assertion here so obvious that he never bothers to construct any biological arguments. There are Jews and there are Jews.
        Average IQ in Israel a few years ago was listed at 89. Though it is claimed that we Ashkenazim average 130. I’m deeply skeptical of that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

      Wow ! I agreed with Marcy Fleming on something. A day to remember.

      • Marcy Fleming

         That worries me ! What am I doing wrong ?

  • Pandemonium

    So, which tour are you taking? :)

  • SLCain

    “SLCain,
     
    “”Since, Mr. Engelman, you consider Twain to be an
    authority on the jews, do you consider the other things he wrote about
    them to likewise be true?  Including the unflattering ones?”"
                  
    I
    read any thinker for insight, rather than doctrine. The biological
    superiority of the Jews is so obvious it does not require a single
    authority to substantiate it. ”

    That’s not an answer.  It’s a dodge.  Why then did you cite Twian, if he is irrelevant?   Again, do YOU consider Twain to be correct when he asserts that jews tend to be grasping and money-hungry?  YOU were the one who cited Twain.  So do you think that Twain is an authority on this matter, but only when he agrees with your biases, and is not one when he doesn’t?

    By the way, I don’t think it’s fair to say of a whole people, like the jews, that they are grasping and greedy, especially as I have known many jews who are not.  I don’t see it as a trait that characterizes the whole people.

    • Marcy Fleming

       Exactly the point. Many thanks.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    The only thing Waldron got right is wanting to ban pornography.

    • http://twitter.com/qaihou Paul Miller

       I guess we better ban Facebook then.

      • loyalwhitebriton

        I guess we better ban Facebook then.

        I’m not sure what the connection is between pornography and facebook?

        • http://skadhitheraverner.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

          You are naive lol.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

        Good idea. Facebook is true terra moronica.

        • Marcy Fleming

           There are many great people and blogs on Facebook. Ilana Mercer’s is an excellent example. You must be right on occasion, Mr. Kaldian, but I just can’t remember one at the moment.
          As Ike said when asked in 1960 about Nixon’s original ideas as his VP,
          “Give me a week and I might think of one.”

    • Marcy Fleming

       Wrong. Another stupid prohibitionist idea.

      • loyalwhitebriton

        What’s wrong with wanting to ban pornography?
        Porn demeans the sexual act, as well as the men and women who “act” in such films. Also, there was a recent article in the Daily Mail which reported that porn from the internet was being viewed by young children (on home pc’s and mobile phones), and it was seriously messing with their heads.
        That might not bother you, but it bothers me (I’ve got kids).

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

          Modern Internet porn, with its variety of perversions & depravities, virtually destroys mind (especially male). Women are totally degraded in porn & I don’t see how a man who has not built moral personality before can escape being transmogrified into a potentially sadistic pervert (or any other variant of male degradation).

          This is serious stuff. Einstein was on the right track when he asked, rhetorically-horrified by WW1: “Isn’t this carnage somehow anchored in the sexual nature of the male ? ” Porn breeds what ancients called “lower nature” (gluttony, sex, irrational violence), so banning, or restricting the porn, would be, IMO, desirable.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense. If anything so-called pornography is a great release for people who can’t have or probably shouldn’t have sex. Women are not degraded in porn and do not want males to legally protect them. It’s a Communist fringe of Lesbian feminism that harps on this.
            Quoting the World Government Communist Einstein does not an argument make. His genius in physics does not translate to politics and philosophy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

            Quoting the World Government Communist Einstein does not an argument make. 
            *******************************
            “World Government Communist Einstein”. Having written that, you simply cannot be taken seriously.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Einstein was an open advocate of World Government, he published his views in some books and he was an avowed Marxist Socialist which is the same as being a Communist
            and he was quite open about that too.
            Your last sentence applies to yourself, Mr. Kaldian, since you didn’t take the time to do the research here.

          • Pandemonium

            IIRC, Einstein “borrowed” many of his ideas from the French mathematician Poincare without attribution. Not nice.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Replying to Pandemonium below, most scientists borrow from others, often without attribution.
            Ayn Rand borrowed from many individualist thinkers without any attribution at all.
            And the list can go on………..

          • David Ashton

             Pornography is an imaginative usually pictorial stimulus to produce the physical result of orgasm.  It is not “speech”.

        • Marcy Fleming

           But the entire population are not your kids. You can censor them under your roof but the rest of us are free to make our own choices without the police.
          Same principle as spanking. If your kids get out of line you are free to spank their behinds. But not the rest of us.

          • loyalwhitebriton

            I think that there is a difference between spanking ones kids if they get out of line, and allowing a situation whereby children’s minds are getting polluted and warped by degenerate filth.
            Just today there was a report in the Daily Mail that strongly suggested that kids that watch porn are significantly more likely to be sexually promiscuous as adults, thus being at greater risk of STDs, as well as regarding the sexual act as one of mere physical gratification as opposed to an expression of love.
            I guess from your posts that your a libertine, which is fair enough.
            I’m a Conservative.

          • Marcy Fleming

             You are only responsible for your own children, not either other people or their children. Most kids now know more about sex at 8 than we knew as teenagers. The average for puberty in US girls is now 11 1/2. And that was as of 16 years ago. No one’s mind is warped by anyone else’s actions but only their own. We need the coppers to focus on real crimes, not the sexual hangups of some people.
            If you catch your kids looking at porn give their backsides some memorable rear end therapy.
            But that’s where your rights end.

        • http://skadhitheraverner.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

          To be honest, I don’t see how young children can ‘get’ the effects of porn, since they can’t be sexually aroused by it. If they can, then they’re not children anymore lol.

          • loyalwhitebriton

            The reports I’ve read of scientific studies suggest that kids aged 10-12, say, understand what is being done in porn films; but because they are still young and not fully matured yet (or at least as mature as, say, an 18 yr old), what they see can cause trauma and stress. The reports included interviews with children who have seen porn, and they have related the effects it’s had on them.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SYKCW323HPUTQOUGE5WZPNXJOU John

             Absolutely. It’s common sense.

    • http://skadhitheraverner.wordpress.com/ Skadhi_the_Raverner

      On stupid grounds though lol.

  • Harumphty_Dumpty

    We should ban “hate speech” because it is the concoction of the ADL, an especially virulent group of anti-whites who have concocted “hate speech” and all their other nonsense as part of the program of white genocide that they and other anti-whites support.

    And now I’ll read the article, though I can’t imagine why anything more than I just said is necessary to know.

    • Pandemonium

      I have read that people in various countries in Europe can be imprisoned for questioning the holocaust or aspects of it. Do you know if that is true? 

      Realizing that countries in Europe do not have our first amendment rights, it seems an extreme form of speech denial to imprison someone for questioning the historical accuracy of an event such as the holocaust.

      Also, do you think that such a thing could ever come to America?

      • Marcy Fleming

         Yes, almost every country there.
        No, it won’t come here.

      • loyalwhitebriton

        I know “holocaust denial” is banned in France, Germany, and Austria. I believe denying the holocaust is an offence in Canada, too.
        Holocaust denial isn’t an offence in Britain (yet).

      • Harumphty_Dumpty
  • TeutonicKnight67

     What’s to LIKE about it?

    • Marcy Fleming

       You could say that about other religions too.

  • http://www.newnation.org/ sbuffalonative

    It’s amazing when listening to black talk radio how blacks have all the answers but they can’t make their own majority black neighborhoods and their majority black schools and their majority black cities work.

    Also, I love the dichotomy when blacks talk about the past. In one breath they talk as if there were lynchings very day and in the next, they long for ‘back in the day’. Which was it? Were northern blacks under their beds hiding from the KKK in Buffalo, NY or were they happy and content within their own communities? 

    I know it was the latter.

  • Mark Green

    One cannot explore Hate Speech laws, their origin and impact, without discussing Jewish sensitivities, Jewish influence and Jewish objectives.  Yet this review (and the book it claims to dissect) actually manages to do exactly that.   It is therefore a very incomplete analysis.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

      ? Maybe in the US, but we in the Communist countries had the exact equivalent in “verbal delict”, without any Jews. These were things you were not free to say-for instance, that Marx’s economics was a pseudo-science.

      • SLCain

        That you had communist rule in your country was the result of soviet russian occupation.   That soviet russia had “political correctness” (the word is a communist term) was due to the nature of that regime – a regime founded by the Bolsheviks, many of whom were indeed jewish.  Stalin had many of them killed, sometimes employing some of them to kill the others.

        • Marcy Fleming

           Not that many Jews were killed by the Soviets. We may have been one of the very few groups that benefited more from the Communists. Stalin didn’t turn anti-Jewish until the last few years of his life.
          He even supplied arms to the Zionist paramiltary in the 1948 via his new satellite of Czechoslovakia. The Soviets were irritated at widespread Arab support for Germany in the war. They also wanted to get the Brits out.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

            What kind of reasoning is that ? Soviet Jews shared the destiny of all Soviet citizens, more or less (until Stalin’s last years). Not privileged in any case. There was nothing specifically “Jewish” in Soviet terror & lunacy.

          • curri

            You’ve been led astray, see Slezkine’s book:
            http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691119953 

            http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/12/commentary-magazine-on-slezkines.html
            “Hillel Halkin grapples with the brilliant Berkeley historian Yuri Slezkine’s interesting but slippery Mercurian vs. Apollonian concepts, and largely leaves out the “Stalin’s willing executioners” aspect of the book — i.e., Slezkine’s illuminating explanations for why many well-educated secular Jews were such enthusiastic builders of the Bolshevik tyranny, with catastrophic consequences for the world as a whole and for Jews in particular.2
            (…)

          • curri

            Jews were over represented among the Communist cadres 
            who implemented the Ukrainian Holodomor:
            http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/06/question-about-ukrainian-holocaust.html 
            (….)
            “Whatever its precise magnitude, the Ukrainian Holocaust is perhaps themost ignored event of the 20th Century. The only persons I’ve ever heard use the phrase “Ukrainian Holocaust” on television have been Pat Buchanan and Mel Gibson during the “Passion of the Christ” brouhaha. I imagine the phrase went right over the heads of 99% of the people watching the interview, but I also suspect (although without much evidence) that Mel was aiming it to be a thumb in the eye to Abe Foxman of the ADL and the like to show them that he knows that they know the secret of the Ukrainian Holocaust.

            What is the secret?

            The reason you almost never hear about the Ukrainian Holocaust, unlike, say, the Armenian Holocaust of 1915, is that among “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” (to use Berkeley historian Yuri Slezkine’s phrase in his landmark 2004 book, The Jewish Century, which restores the dignity of Jews, after decades of being portrayed solely as passive victims of history, by showing how Jews, qua Jews, were among the most dynamic actors in the central events of the 20th Century) in the Ukraine, secular Jews were vastly over-represented in proportion to their small numbers

            Stalin went out of his way to assign Jewish secret policemen to the homicidal collectivization of Ukrainian agricultural because, being a close student how he could exploit all that is twisted and hate-ridden in history, he knew that Jewish Communists would be the least likely to show mercy to the Ukrainian peasants due to the ancient ethnic animus between the farmers and the Jews employed by the ruling Polish nobles as rent and tax collectors, a hostility which culminated in the pogroms of the 1648 anti-Polish uprising in the Ukraine.(…)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

            I’ve read Slezkine, Solzhenitsyn, Conquest, Medvedev, Kolakowski, Tucker, Grossman, …. and the notion that Jews are “guilty” for the plight of Ukrainians (and Kazakhs and Russians and ..) is preposterous.

            It’s an extension of Judeo-Bolshevism canard.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Again, not true. At least 35% of the original Bolsheviks were Jews as was every head of the GPU, NKVD, then later KGB from 1917-1950.
            The Jewish component of the Bolsheviks may have been far higher than 35% as there is much dispute about this.
            Being from Yugoslavia with its brainwashed Communist media you would hardly be an authority on the USSR.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Below you misrepresent Solzhenitsyn’s views on Jewish participation in the USSR. He wrote a book about it and repeatedly says that it was considerable.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

            Marcy Fleming- you are clueless. I read Solzhenitsyn book on Jewish question in Russian (unlike you, I suppose) & I know what he’s talking about. Here is the book online:  http://www.jewniverse.ru/RED/Solzhenitsin/index.htm

            I’m through with this, anyway.

          • curri

            The world is rife with lunatics, but there is a strong Jewish component to Bolshevism:
            http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf 
            (…)
            In other words, the war against “rural backwardness and religion” was exactlythe sort of war that a traditional Jew would have supported wholeheartedly,because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressingthem. Of course traditional shtetl Jews also hated the tsar and his governmentdue to restrictions on Jews and because they did not think that the governmentdid enough to rein in anti-Jewish violence. There can be little doubt that Lenin’scontempt for “the thick-skulled, boorish, inert, and bearishly savage Russian or Ukrainian peasant” was shared by the vast majority of shtetl Jews prior to the Revolution and after it.

            Those Jews who defiled the holy places of traditional
            Russian culture and published anti-Christian periodicals doubtless reveled in their tasks for entirely Jewish reasons, and, as Gorky worried, their activities not unreasonably stoked the anti-Semitism of the period. Given the anti-Christian attitudes of traditional shtetl Jews, it is very difficult to believe that the Jews
            engaged in campaigns against Christianity did not have a sense of revenge against the old culture that they held in such contempt.

            Slezkine seems comfortable with revenge as a Jewish motive, but he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself to be a contributor to Jewish attitudes toward traditional Russia, even though he notes that a very traditional part of Jewish culture was to despise the Russians and their culture. (Even the Jewish literati despised all of traditional Russian culture, apart from Pushkin and a few literary icons.) Indeed, one wonders what would motivate the Jewish commissars
            to revenge apart from motives related to their Jewish identity.

            Traditional hostility toward non-Jews and their culture forms a central theme in the writings of Israel Shahak and many mainstream Jewish historians, including Slezkine, and I have presented summaries of this material elsewhere.64
            (…)
            Slezkine’s argument that Jews were critically involved in destroyingtraditional Russian institutions, liquidating Russian nationalists, murdering thetsar and his family, dispossessing and murdering the kulaks, and destroyingthe Orthodox Church has been made by many other writers over the years,including Igor Shafarevich, a mathematician and member of the prestigiousU. S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Shafarevich’s review of Jewishliterary works during the Soviet and post-Soviet period agrees with Slezkine in showing Jewish hatred mixed with a powerful desire for revenge toward pre-revolutionary Russia and its culture.65

            (…)

            It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder
            by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.”68 And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”69 These attitudes are well
            captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s—the vast majority of the
            population—were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.”70 In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews
            in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is notvery different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen
            (…)

          • curri

            From Slezkine, p175:
            (…)
            “At the first All-Russian Congress of Soviets in June 1917, 
            at least 31 percent of Bolshevik delegates (and 37 percent of Unified Social Democrats) were Jews. At the Bolshevik Central Committee meeting of of October 23, 1917, which voted to launch an armed insurrection, 5 out of 12 members present were Jews. Three out of seven Politbureau members charged with leading the October uprising were Jews(Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Gregory Sokolnikov aka Girsh Brilliant) .  ”
            (….)

            p.176

            (…)
            “The Jewish share of the Party’s Central Committee in 1919-21 remained steady at about one-fourth. In 1918, about 54 percent of all Petrograd Party officials described as “leading” were Jews, as were 45 percent of city and provincial Party officials and 36 percent of the Northern District commissars.”
            (…)

            p.199
            (….)
            “The culmination of the story of Jewish commissars in Soviet literature was the famous history of the construction of the White Sea Canal, 1931-34. ..
            The construction was run by the secret police (the OGPU, the successor to the Cheka). All the top leadership positions  were held by Jews: G.G. Yagoda , the OGPU official in charge of the project; L.I. Berman, the head of the Labor Camp Administration (Gulag); and N.A. Frenkel, the head of the work organization on the canal.”
            (…)

            Just a small sample. They are many, many, many pages documenting Jewish privilege in the USSR.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Not true. The Soviets heavily aided Tito in his coming to power.
            See Tito, Moscow’s Trojan Horse, written by a Serb.

          • Marcy Fleming

             Reply to Kaldian’s comments below about reading Solzhenitsyn. I read him in english and it’s the same book translated and he definitely concludes there was a huge Jewish factor in the Bolshevik Coup in 1917 as many other historians have noted. The insult of ‘cluelessness’ applies strictly to yourself.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

          No, my country was ex- Yugoslavia. Our Communists came to power without Soviets; actually, we dumped them-or they us- rather quickly, 1948. Jews were marginal & almost non-existent among our leadership.

          • curri

            Yet, by way of strange coincidence, the Yugoslav War and break up didn’t occur until  after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc/Warsaw Pact. 

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ARPL2BMMTX3VEWRMZST7R5NT4A Grim

       Because AmRen is jew friendly and treats the jewish problem with kid gloves, or genuflection, is why AmRen will always be quite limited in their effectiveness.

      It’s like treating a deep wound by wiping off the blood that comes to the surface only and hoping for the best with no consideration for the poisoned bullet lodged deep within.

      The Occidental Observer, on the other hand, deals with the root causes and treats the problem, not just the symptoms.

      • Marcy Fleming

         I disagree. Occasionally I’ve been censored here and I’m a dissident Jew.
        I was viciously Jew-baited at Occidental Observer and I think many of the contributors there are Nazis. Period.
        AmRen is much more effective than OO and not one-dimensional as OO.

        • loyalwhitebriton

          ..I’m a dissident Jew..

          What’s a dissident Jew? Don’t you want to be Jewish any more?
          Are you pro-white. Can Jews be pro-white? Would you like to see an all white America? Just what is your position?

          Of course you can just tell me to bugger off – I’m not a cop. However, I ask these questions respectfully, and out of genuine curiosity.

          • Marcy Fleming

             I am white and I am very concerned about Black sociopathology.
            That’s why I come here.
            Dissident anyones are people who dissent from prevailing tribal orthodoxies. I’m as much a Jew as any standard leftist Jew.
            Not all of us follow the Party Line.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

    Spinoza was right: in a free country a man can always speak what he thinks, and he can think whatever he wishes.

  • Church_of_Jed

    I’m guilty of hate speech for saying that I’m now noticing that TV commercials are “evolving” our understanding of who an American is by their using actors whose faces are looking more indigenously Central American than the usual light skinned, smiling “they share our values” Hispanics or Latinos.

    I just saw a very Aztec cast to the lead face on a Best Buy commercial. That look always means illegal alien and is most often seen when your yard service shows up or standing next the driveway of Home Depot, and now I’m illegal, too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

    Like sex & taxes, “Joos” seem to be a perennial theme. OK, Engelmann & Mark Twain:

    1. Jews last for ca. 3000 yrs; English, French & Germans for ca. 1000 (even less, as crystallized groups).

    2. almost all historical figures, from ancient Greece & Rome to Goethe and Voltaire, had castigated Jews as vulgar, unoriginal, barbaric, sneaky, cunning but without nobility of spirit, essentially not creative. Not some Christian fanatics, but enlightened spirits. Until 1933. the only philo-Semitic creative persons were, as I recall, George Eliot and James Joyce. All others (Marx, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Wittgenstein, Wagner, Voltaire, Proust, Henry James, Nietzsche (a complex question), Chesterton, ..) were, to say the least, not very sympathetic.

    3. Jews’ creative accomplishments last some 150 years & are, mostly, the result of complete assimilation into host cultures, with characteristic traits of these cultures. Simply, normative Judaism- unlike Kabbalah- is a Platonized religion in many respects similar to early Confucianism: life’s fulfillment is achieved through learning, study & mostly mental work- and not piety nor supernatural yearnings. Early Judaism, as recorded in the Pentateuch, had not possessed that idea. Somewhere around 100-300 A.D. Jews adopted Plato’s ethic of self-cultivation through intellectual work & produced a vast literature of almost completely dated & sterile Behemoth nitpicking trivialities (Talmud, Responsa, ..).

    So- what’s your point ? Even in past 100-150 years, it was Gentiles -with a few exceptions like Einstein- who produced most enduring science, technology & culture in all fields (Diesel, Edison, Ziolkowski and Goddard, Loggie Baird, Joyce and Proust, Picasso and Stravinsky, Planck, Heisenberg, Dirac and Schrodinger, Morgan and Watson, Darwin and Ronald Fisher,…). I admire very much Kafka, Mahler, Marvin Minsky, Otto Lilienthal, Salman Waksman, John Von Neumann, Hermann Broch, Karl Landsteiner, …(I included converts)- but evidently you are so infatuated with Jews hardly any rational argument would be even taken notice of.

    And don’t start with numerical disparity. Jews were, prior to WW”, comparable to other peoples (20 M Jews; 45 M British; 65 M Germans, ..); in past 500 -1000 years enormous “Gentile” energies went to warfare & various blood lettings (100 yrs war; 30 yrs war- 60% of Germans perished; conquest of Americas & the Orient; Napoleonic wars; WW1 and WW2,.. ). At the same time, British had the energy to:

    a) begin Industrial revolution
    b) wage wars against Napoleon
    c) make discoveries in mathematics, chemistry, physics (Hamilton, Young, Davy,..)
    d) begin sweeping social reforms

    Now, that’s something.

    • Marcy Fleming

       What’s your point ? You seem determined to minimize Jewish participation in everything, both bad and good.
      You talk about ‘the British’ as if they were some single entity.
      But in reality SOME Brits colonized much of the world, some Brits were involved in the Industrial Revolution, some Brits committed countless atrocities in India and Ireland, some Brits sponsored both pro-freedom reforms and anti-freedom welfare statism,
      etc. Some Brits excelled in math & sciences as did MANY Jews. Einstein was far from being alone. You are the reverse mirror of Mr. Engelman, he posits a Ashkenazim
      superiority and you go to the other extreme.
      The enormous Gentile destructiveness that you do properly document should be a cautionary tale to the idea that we Jews are the source of all evil.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

        I simply say that Jewish creative contribution is overrated (which it is).
        If you want explicitly- British gentile mathematicians have contributed significantly more than Jewish mathematicians from all nations put together. That’s the truth.

        Jews are great creative people, but English, Germans and French are the greatest. After ancient Greeks, who are simply beyond comparison.

         

        • Marcy Fleming

           I won’t lose any sleep over this but I haven’t seen the documentation on the Brits’ math geniuses versus ours (Jews.)
          The great majority of Brits, Jews, French and Germans contributed nothing. They just lived as do most people of every group.
          To call a genius of any race a product of his group is barnyard tribal collectivism. If the Germans are such geniuses how did they manage to almost wipe themselves over differences in Christian doctrine ?
          The French for the greater part are beneath contempt as is their whole phony culture as Chomsky noted.
          The Brits sold out their liberties for free dentures as Rand noted.
          I agree that some of the ancient Greeks were the best but many were not.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bardon-Kaldian/100003542251801 Bardon Kaldian

            Are you capable of rational discourse ? The vast majority of Jews did not contribute anything – as is the case with any ethnic/national group, including English, Russians, Japanese or Romans. What’s your point, anyway ?

            Go to any greatest mathematicians sites, see the names & contributions; do it for any other human discipline & the answer would be crystal clear.

            ” If the Germans are such geniuses how did they manage to almost wipe themselves over differences in Christian doctrine ? ”

            Are you aware of the nonsense you wrote ?

            Anyway, I’ve wasted too much time over something that is actually nothing.

             

          • Marcy Fleming

             All you did here was ad hominem attacks, no proofs, no specifics, no reasoning.
            I already stated that the vast majority of all groups did not contribute and that was my point in refuting your untruthful generalities about Brits, French and Germans.
            How could you miss that ?

          • loyalwhitebriton

            The Brits sold out their liberties for free dentures..
            Yeah, we did. How bloody pathetic, eh?

          • Marcy Fleming

             Yes, but you all have plenty of company in the world today.

  • Marcy Fleming

     No we won’t, it will be defeated if he even tries and I doubt he will. We have to end this one down loser mentality on the Right.

  • Marcy Fleming

     True. But some of us feel that way about the GOP in Tampa and the Blacks in New Orleans.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SYKCW323HPUTQOUGE5WZPNXJOU John

    Although I would hate to see free speech be limited in the United States, because it is an entrenched part of our tradition, in reality, it is a spurious tenet.  In reality, the only workable system, as the Catholic Church has maintained for centuries, is: “Only the Truth Has Rights.”  Tolerance of error, is a part of the Christian Era’s noble patrimony.  No civilization in the history of the world ever tolerated as much error as did the Christian millennium.  But that rule never ceased defining it as “error”.   And tolerance of error involves a prudential decision that can only be made through the lens of truth.

    • Seek

      And who makes the call as to whether a particular opinion is erroneous?  A bunch of pompous Catholic prelates?  No thanks.  I’ll defend my right to be mistaken as well as someone else’s right to give me a reality check. 

  • Harumphty_Dumpty

    To Pandemonium re European jailings for “Holocaust® denial”:

    Other names you could google would be Germar Rudolph and ernst zundel. There are quite a few others also that I can’t recall. Here’s one more article on David Irving, pretty much the same stuff as the other article

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/europe/21holocaust.html?_r=1&ref=davidirving

    As for this coming to America, the ADL is working very hard to that end, with their extremely intelligent step by step nibbling away on the “hate” issue (ADL writes most of the hate laws in use around the country…you can learn a lot btw by getting on their email list)

    ANTI-WHITES and advertisers understand something that Amren and the rest of the white movement do NOT understand: the minds of the masses are not won principally by reasoning and presentation of facts, but by repetition of the same simple points expressed in stock phrases over and over and over and over.

    Look at what the anti-whites have accomplished with their invented term, “racism”! Was this term anything but a laughable absurdity when people first began to hear it back in the 1950s and 1960s?

    But now it’s the only “thought” whites are capable of  entertaining whenever the subject of race is mentioned!

    Just read any article that anti-whites write on race, and you’ll see exactly how this has been accomplished: by using the word “racism” over and over and over in every other sentence so that it’s hammered into white minds to the exclusion of anything else!

    That kind of repetition is what some of us are giving to the phrases “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” and “white genocide”…we want to drive the R-word out of white minds and replace it with the term “anti-white,” and the term “white genocide.”

    We need more help from sites like Amren than we are getting…the essence of the technique is repetition, so if all posts are removed that contain the phrases save one or two (I’m not sure if the “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white” refrain is allowed here at all now…I”ve given up trying to use it here), the whole technique is blocked.

    There needs to be a compromise between the regulars here not wanting to be bored silly by seeing the same thing over and over, and the realization that this site should be primarily (?) a site aimed at bringing more active members into the white movement and giving them tools to work with, as all white sites should be.

    We are all trying to fight the fight, right, not just stay nestled in our own cocoons?

  • Harumphty_Dumpty

    Well thanks a lot Amren, I’m working hard at editing a long comment to get it just right, and you jerk it away.

    Hey, don’t have any consideration for your posters…that’s the way to grow, dudes! See you again in a few months maybe.

  • Harumphty_Dumpty

    Moderator, do you allow mention of methods of furthering our cause that depart from Amren’s own current methods, when that mention connects EXACTLY to the topic of the article, the success that anti-whites have made of the word “HATE”?

    To Pandemonium re European jailings for “Holocaust® denial”:

    Other names you could google would be Germar Rudolph and Ernst zundel. There are quite a few others also that I can’t recall. Here’s one more article on David Irving’s jailing for “denying” the Holocaust®, pretty much the same stuff as the other article

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/world/europe/21holocaust.html?_r=1&ref=davidirving

    As for this coming to America, the ADL is working very hard to that end, with their extremely intelligent step by step nibbling away on the “hate” issue (ADL writes most of the hate laws in use around the country…you can learn a lot btw by getting on their email list)

    Anti-white groups like the ADL and the media repeat the term “hate” over and over and over.

    That’s because anti-whites understand something that advertisers have understood at least since the 1950s, but which Amren and the rest of the white movement do NOT understand: the minds of the masses are not won principally by reasoning and presentation of facts, but by repetition of the same simple points expressed in stock phrases over and over and over!

    Look at what the anti-whites have accomplished not only with their current mass blaring of the word “hate,” but what they’ve accomplished for a long time by repeating endlessly the big bad r-word that Trotsky invented, “racism”! 

    Was the r-word anything but a laughable absurdity when people first heard it back in the 1950s and 1960s?

    But now it’s the only “thought” that whites are capable of  entertaining whenever the subject of race is mentioned!

    Just read any article that anti-whites write on race, and you’ll see exactly how they accomplished this: they use the r-word over and over and over in every other sentence so that it’s hammered into white minds to the exclusion of anything else!

    That kind of repetition is what some of us are giving the phrases “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white,” and “white genocide”…we want to drive the r-word out of white minds and replace it with the term “anti-white,” and the term “white genocide.”

    We need more help from white sites, like Amren, than we are getting. The essence of the technique is repetition, so if all posts are removed that contain the phrases save one or two (I’m not sure if the “anti-racist is a code word for anti-white” refrain is allowed here at all now…I”ve given up trying to use it here), the whole technique is blocked.

    There needs to be a compromise between the regulars here not wanting to be bored silly by seeing the same thing over and over, and the realization that this site should be primarily (?) a site aimed at bringing more active members into the white movement and giving them tools to work with, as all white sites should be.

    We are all trying to fight the fight, right, not just stay nestled in our own cocoons?

    • Pandemonium

      thanks for the information; I agree that “hate speech” is being used to try to curtail free speech in the US. 

      Someone posted earlier that they didn’t think that “holocaust denial” would ever be a crime in the US. I’m not so sure about that.

      One has to seriously question motivation when one is legally denied the right to talk about a certain subject. That denial is tantamount to book-burning. A society which does either is not a free society.

      Notwithstanding the above discussions, I can certainly understand Amren’s desire to prevent itself from becoming “just another Jew-bashing site”. That would surely not advance our cause.

      Thanks again for the information you provided. 

    • Observer

      Do you think that the concept of racism was a laughable absurdity in the 1950s and 1960s? In my opinion, it certainly reflects what was a social and legal reality. If you’re in the business of pushing back against “anti-white” sentiment (of which there are some examples – just as of anti-black or anti-hispanic hatred), I wouldn’t make such an assertion. You know, you’re showing your colours a bit too much.

      • Harumphty_Dumpty

        The big bad R-word was an absurdity from the day of its invention, since it told the lie that racial feeling was a learned pathology rather than an innate trait that had evolved to protect the survival of human groups.

        The word was invented by Red Army leader Leon Trotsky, so it’s not a surprise that it’s just one more Bolshevik lie about human nature. The Bolsheviks even lied about plant nature…google Lysenko if you aren’t familiar with that.

        There is one truth about the R-word today:

        Anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white.

      • Harumphty_Dumpty

        I grew up in the South in the 1940s and 1950s. The racial system in place in the South then worked, for both whites and blacks. Not only were white neighborhoods safe, black neighborhoods were generally safe also. I’ve had discussions with a very intelligent professional black woman much more elderly than myself who grew up in the same Southern city I did, and the family life and neighborhood life she describes growing up there in the late 1930s and 1940s were something that can only be longed for in most places in the U.S. today.

        Relations between the races were generally friendly, and in their odd Southern way, respectful.

        One might feel that those arrangements, involving power and superior status being reserved for whites, left much to be desired.

        But don’t all arrangements among humans? Look at the much worse racial arrangement we have today, after anti-whites have succeeded in carrying out their attempt to allegedly improve the previous arrangements!

        And a chief way in which those previous arrangements were “improved” (as that “improvement” is chronicled daily in the pages here at Amren!) was to beat whites over the head with the R-word at every opportunity!

        When the word “anti-white” has replaced the R-word in white minds, we’ll have a white movement with some hope of being effective. So please repeat the word “anti-white” at every opportunity…beat anti-whites over the head with it whenever reachable whites may be looking on!

  • Danimalius

    It occurred to me just now as I was checking up on what Le Pen is up to, that we ourselves could stand to start getting personal with our politics. We need to understand that when news groups, “civil rights” organizations, and political parties go after us, who we are really facing are collections of individuals who routinely attack us on a personal level.

    We need to do the same. More often than not, people like the author mentioned in this article are out-of-touch weirdos who have no business trying to kick anyone out of polite society. If a journalist prints a “news” story that passes off casual insults as objective information, that journalist needs to be put on our own version of a “hate watch list.”

  • razorrare

    curri…ever read a book called ‘By Way of Deception’ by ex-mossad agent Ostrovsky/Claire Hoy…I believe he devotes a chapter to the Israeli attack on the  U.S.S. Liberty and also says the attack was deliberate–and gives his reason why they did it–apparently to make it look like one of their enemies did it…to get the U.S. to do its dirty work…of course–by way of deception…a fascinating read.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DTUN2QSRPYDFCRP3KHFUZPURXI Charles

    Freedom of Speech is most valuable precisely when it makes people uncomfortable with their own thoughts—i.e., when it FORCES people to question their basic assumptions and think.  I don’t think anyone should be offended by the question: who are you and what are you really like?  Mr. Waldron might agree with that, to begin with, but what if I form conclusions and opinions about you from your answer and how you act or you form conclusions and opinions about me from my answer.  
    Let’s take a non-controversial example: I’m a graduate of Harvard University and Mr. Taylor is a graduate of Yale.  What if, after meeting a couple of hundred Ivy League types from one or both of these two oldest colleges in the Northeastern US, someone were to conclude: “People from Harvard and Yale are incredibly stuck up, arrogant, full of themselves, and worst of all BORING and CONCEITED.”  I suspect Mr. Taylor is smiling right now as he reads this, because YES, even those of us who have been educated in those environments know that there is more than a grain of truth in that “group characterization.”   Of course, there is no immediate danger that such opinions will cause the charters of Harvard or Yale to be revoked, and even less danger that the reality that current students and past graduates of Harvard and Yale will be any less boring or conceited.  So what if we add to the conclusion: “I surely would never date or marry anyone who was (or wasn’t) from Harvard or Yale; and I surely would never want one of my children to date anyone who was (or wasn’t) from Harvard or Yale.”  That twists the knife a little bit, but it is still a socially acceptable thing to say, isn’t it?  Especially since we all know (realistically) how difficult it is to control in advance decisions our own romantic inclinations might make, never mind those of our children.  So let’s take it a step further: imagine that the situation is this—a recruitment coordinator says that after twenty years, “I have hired dozens of those Harvard and Yale people and they all look great on paper and they all think they are just the cat’s meow, and they all want top dollar salaries from day one; but NONE of them work as hard as people from state schools, so in the future, I’m not interviewing at Harvard or Yale anymore—I want working class “salt of the earth” people who actually intend on WORKING for a living.”Are any of these conclusions or opinions completely unjustified or unwarranted?  Can we BLAME the recruiter?  Can we say he is guilty of irrational “group hatred” or “group libel?”    What if the recruiter could show the statistics that support his conclusions and opinions?  Or what if he can’t?  

    The question is: should the government protect the recruiter or the graduates of Harvard and Yale?  You respond: “It is OK to hate and discriminate against those who have traditionally been the most elite, insular, privileged and wealthiest members of society.”  

    And I respond: but if the recruiters opinions become commonplace, that will threaten the elite, insular, privileged, and wealth-status of Harvard and Yale Graduates—so it is in THEIR interests to suppress all who criticize or ridicule them as a group.  

    In essence, this is precisely why there used to be a crime called “compassing the death of the king.”  Even to imagine or discuss the possibility that the king might die was a crime in Jolly Old England and elsewhere on the European continent.   If you talk about the King’s physical weakness, or his weakness in war, that is treason, isn’t it?  Or at least it is sedition.  And that’s why we had the “Alien & Sedition Acts” in this Country during George Washington’s and John Adams’ Federalist terms—within a few years of the adoption of the First Amendment.  But that is also why the states of Kentucky and Virginia rose up and NULLIFIED the Alien & Sedition Laws according to their understanding of their own sovereignty.  

    The heart of the rights enshrined by Freedom of Speech are the rights to Criticize—criticize graduates of Harvard and Yale, a class which, by the way, includes ALL recent US Presidents for the past 24 years, and quite a few before that, but to criticize equally ALL members of Government, and all of our fellow citizens.   

    There’s no doubt that it is embarrassing to be told that we have torn or stained clothes when we appear in public.  But why is it said of such things that “only your best friend will tell you?”  We say that because when our friends say it, it gives us a chance to improve our appearance, before really nasty people who don’t like us say it or DON’T say it and just laugh at us behind our backs.   Criticism of GROUPS, like criticism of INDIVIDUALS, is essential not merely to the Free Life in Civilization but to any life in society at all.  Criticism is natural to speaking people.  Would we rather that all our thoughts be suppressed until they boil over and force us into truly inhuman violence?  Group Criticism is healthy and positive.  I am a former President of College Republicans who now criticizes the Republican Mainstream.  I am a graduate of Harvard who thinks that Harvard is the source or incubator of many ills in the United States, and even the world.  I am a Texan who thinks that Texans have sold out their heritage in large part.   And yes, I am also a White Christian American who thinks that White Christian Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans have generally sold out their heritage, and that their “sell-out” threatens the civilization and stability of the whole world.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DTUN2QSRPYDFCRP3KHFUZPURXI Charles

    Freedom of Speech is most valuable precisely when it makes people uncomfortable with their own thoughts—i.e., when it FORCES people to question their basic assumptions and think.  I don’t think anyone should be offended by the question: who are you and what are you really like?  Mr. Waldron might agree with that, to begin with, but what if I form conclusions and opinions about you from your answer and how you act or you form conclusions and opinions about me from my answer.  Let’s take a non-controversial example: I’m a graduate of Harvard University and Mr. Taylor is a graduate of Yale.  What if, after meeting a couple of hundred Ivy League types from one or both of these two oldest colleges in the Northeastern US, someone were to conclude: “People from Harvard and Yale are incredibly stuck up, arrogant, full of themselves, and worst of all BORING and CONCEITED.”  I suspect Mr. Taylor is smiling right now as he reads this, because YES, even those of us who have been educated in those environments know that there is more than a grain of truth in that “group characterization.”   Of course, there is no immediate danger that such opinions will cause the charters of Harvard or Yale to be revoked, and even less danger that the reality that current students and past graduates of Harvard and Yale will be any less boring or conceited.  So what if we add to the conclusion: “I surely would never date or marry anyone who was (or wasn’t) from Harvard or Yale; and I surely would never want one of my children to date anyone who was (or wasn’t) from Harvard or Yale.”  That twists the knife a little bit, but it is still a socially acceptable thing to say, isn’t it?  Especially since we all know (realistically) how difficult it is to control in advance decisions our own romantic inclinations might make, never mind those of our children.  So let’s take it a step further: imagine that the situation is this—a recruitment coordinator says that after twenty years, “I have hired dozens of those Harvard and Yale people and they all look great on paper and they all think they are just the cat’s meow, and they all want top dollar salaries from day one; but NONE of them work as hard as people from state schools, so in the future, I’m not interviewing at Harvard or Yale anymore—I want working class “salt of the earth” people who actually intend on WORKING for a living.”Are any of these conclusions or opinions completely unjustified or unwarranted?  Can we BLAME the recruiter?  Can we say he is guilty of irrational “group hatred” or “group libel?”    What if the recruiter could show the statistics that support his conclusions and opinions?  Or what if he can’t?  

    The question is: should the government protect the recruiter or the graduates of Harvard and Yale?  You respond: “It is OK to hate and discriminate against those who have traditionally been the most elite, insular, privileged and wealthiest members of society.”  

    And I respond: but if the recruiters opinions become commonplace, that will threaten the elite, insular, privileged, and wealth-status of Harvard and Yale Graduates—so it is in THEIR interests to suppress all who criticize or ridicule them as a group.  

    In essence, this is precisely why there used to be a crime called “compassing the death of the king.”  Even to imagine or discuss the possibility that the king might die was a crime in Jolly Old England and elsewhere on the European continent.   If you talk about the King’s physical weakness, or his weakness in war, that is treason, isn’t it?  Or at least it is sedition.  And that’s why we had the “Alien & Sedition Acts” in this Country during George Washington’s and John Adams’ Federalist terms—within a few years of the adoption of the First Amendment.  But that is also why the states of Kentucky and Virginia rose up and NULLIFIED the Alien & Sedition Laws according to their understanding of their own sovereignty.  

    The heart of the rights enshrined by Freedom of Speech are the rights to Criticize—criticize graduates of Harvard and Yale, a class which, by the way, includes ALL recent US Presidents for the past 24 years, and quite a few before that, but to criticize equally ALL members of Government, and all of our fellow citizens.   

    There’s no doubt that it is embarrassing to be told that we have torn or stained clothes when we appear in public.  But why is it said of such things that “only your best friend will tell you?”  We say that because when our friends say it, it gives us a chance to improve our appearance, before really nasty people who don’t like us say it or DON’T say it and just laugh at us behind our backs.   Criticism of GROUPS, like criticism of INDIVIDUALS, is essential not merely to the Free Life in Civilization but to any life in society at all.  Criticism is natural to speaking people.  Would we rather that all our thoughts be suppressed until they boil over and force us into truly inhuman violence?  Group Criticism is healthy and positive.  I am a former President of College Republicans who now criticizes the Republican Mainstream.  I am a graduate of Harvard who thinks that Harvard is the source or incubator of many ills in the United States, and even the world.  I am a Texan who thinks that Texans have sold out their heritage in large part.   And yes, I am also a White Christian American who thinks that White Christian Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans have generally sold out their heritage, and that their “sell-out” threatens the civilization and stability of the whole world.

  • Harumphty_Dumpty

    Our anti-white enemy  have totally imposed their  anti-white terms, “hate,” “racist,” “bigot,” “intolerant,” etc. and have incorporated those  anti-white terms in their anti-white laws and anti-white policies.

    There could be no “hate laws” today if anti-whites had not first methodically built up  the word “hate” into the monster they’ve made it.

    Our anti-white enemy understand the importance of  language. We do not.If you are happy to continue expostulating while yoked to the terminology of the anti-whites, read no further.Many of us who feel differently have settled on three principal wedges to open the way for a white terminology instead:1. “Anti-white”2.  “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white”3.  “White genocide”

    If the latter two are beyond your ken at the moment (I had to grapple with the last one myself), at least you can see the desirability of propagating the term “anti-white“ at every opportunity….use it constantly, please, until it has become an everyday term among whites!

    Our anti-white enemies completely understand this stuff! We are light years behind!

  • Pandemonium

    Curri, thanks for posting these relevant quotes.

     I have read quite a bit about the Liberty affair, but have never seen a definitive reason given for WHY the Israelis attacked the spy ship. I remember reading somewhere (though I forget where) that the Israelis wanted to destroy evidence gathered by the ship of ongoing Israeli war atrocities against captured Egyptian soldiers. Do you know anything about why the attack took place?

    • curri

      I think we’d need a GENUINE investigation to find the answer to that question.  We’d better move fast since so many of the victims and perps are dead or elderly.  A campaign of civil disobedience in Congressional offices may be necessary.  But bold souls who are not afraid of the NDAA, PATRIOT Act and another repressive law the name of which I can’t recall right now would be necessary.  That last law prevents you from exercising your Constitutional rights at a place where the Secret Service is on duty.  

    • Marcy Fleming

       That part about Israeli atrocities against fleeing Egyptian soldiers is true but the bigger reason was that the ship monitoring the Israeli attack on Syria. Jim Taylor and Jim Ennes have written two separate books on this, check them out.

  • razorrare

               “To think that hate speech laws would be applied equally  to all is absurd.” …

    Yes indeed,especially when we have witnessed how Hate Crime Laws(beginning in the 80′s—ADL) have not been applied equally to all…Hate crime laws are unconstitutional and must be done away with….Rev.Ted Pike,Director of the National Prayer Network speaks on this issue very effectively…this last saturday he was a quest on political cesspool and gave his take on the shootings at the HQ of  Family Research Council…it can be heard here(about 3/4ths through audio)Radio Show Hour 2–Sunday Aug 26…

    http://feeds.feedburner.com/tpc-podcast

  • Carney3

    I’m reading, learning, engaging, nodding along, and then I see this, written by Jared Taylor:

    “Danish Muslims”

    Jared Taylor!!  Of all people!  How depressing that he would make such an elementary error.

    There ARE no “Danish Muslims”.  There are ONLY Muslims in Denmark and/or Muslims with Danish residency rights, or even (sigh) Muslims with Danish citizenship.  But NO “Danish Muslims”.

  • Pandemonium

    Marcy Fleming, 

    When a scientist is promulgating “new ideas”, the implication is that those ideas are his/hers, that is, original thinking. Such was the case when Einstein promulgated the idea of special relativity.

     The French mathematician, Poincare, had already written extensively about the idea of special and general relativity. These writings, although known by a small circle of other philosophers/mathematicians, were not published in the general literature. The thinking is that Einstein very probably knew of these writings since he had correspondence with several members of this small circle. That Einstein did not credit Poincare is reprehensible. In fact, he did not publish a bibliography at all. He gave no credit to any previous work by others.

    In publishing results of scientific research, the work or results of others is always given credit, particularly if you are building on their original work.

    This story reminds me of how Marconi got the sole credit for inventing wireless transmission when, in fact, Tesla did the original thinking/inventing. Marconi was the best “marketer”.

  • Marcy Fleming

     Yes, there way too many people who believe in free speech.
    So instead of this one down defeatism we need to be pushing towards victory.

  • Sherman_McCoy

    “Hardly anyone thinks pornography makes a “massive difference” to a woman’s environment, and very few people are trying to ban it.”

    I don’t doubt for a moment that interracial porn encourages black “men” to rape white women.  I’d be very happy if anti-miscegenation laws were re-implemented. making this sort of abomination as illegal as kiddie-porn.

  • Pandemonium

     Black people use it freely and frequently. If this word made the list of nasty words under a “hate speech” law, and I’m sure it would, to whom and how would it be applied? What about black comedians and rap singers, whose lyrics are full of hatred and racial slurs? Or any artist or musician for that matter? Would there be an “artistic exemption?”
    Perhaps there would be an “artistic exemption”, but absent that, I would say that  ”equal protection under the law” would prevent allowing blacks to use the n word and not all others. 

    Notwithstanding the above, I say we all need to fight against ANY hate speech laws since they are the beginning of the end of our first amendment right to free speech; they are also rooted deeply in political correctness which is nothing more than a euphemism for cultural marxism. 

  • Bergeron

    Why don’t you post this over at Amazon.com?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aunti-Occupy/100003232140389 Aunti Occupy

    This article is not worth commenting on.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    There’s some talk in here about pornography and the First Amendment.

    Porn and other similar “pursuits” are what is called in legalese “limited protected speech.”  As opposed to fully protected speech (political opinions) or non-protected speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater, calling for the President to be assassinated).  Limited protected means that it’s almost impossible for a jurisdiction to prohibit porn, but it can place reasonable restrictions on the “time, place and manner” of the distribution or exhibition of porn.

  • Defiant White

    After reading this, I’ve decided to hate Professor Waldron.

  • http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/ Reuben H

    My guess is that relatively few anti-whites will read Waldron’s book. Their hatred toward the white race is the only reason they need to ban “hate speech” (only if it’s directed against non-whites of course). The publishing of such books is naught but a thinly veiled attempt to give a veneer of legitimacy to the Left’s own bigotry.

    http://www.jewamongyou.wordpress.com

  • JadedUnknown

    I’m beginning to favor abolishing freedom of speech.