Omega Man
From Charlton Heston's speech, Winning the Cultural War, delivered 16 February 1999, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School:Let me back up a little. About a year or two ago, I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms of American citizens. I ran for office. I was elected, and now I serve. I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know, I'm pretty old, but I sure Lord ain't senile.He followed with a series of anecdotes typifying the absurdities of our times. Then he continued:
As I've stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are -- are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain accepted thoughts and speech are mandated.
For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- and long before Hollywood found it acceptable, I may say. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.
I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life -- throughout my whole career. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out the innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.
Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution I'm talking about, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.
From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that. You are using language not authorized for public consumption."
But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys -- subjects bound to the British crown.
Now, what does all of this mean? Among other things, it means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to -- to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?Heston spoke in liberal terms and accepted their conventional wisdom on McCarthy and MLK. Even so he could not help but notice and point out the symptoms of our rotten politically correct anti-White regime. He, in person and under his own name, called on future leaders to oppose it.
Let -- Let's be honest. Who here in this room thinks your professors can say what they really believe? (Uh-huh. There's a few....) Well, that scares me to death, and it should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
You are the best and the brightest. You, here in this fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River. You are the cream. But I submit that you and your counterparts across the land are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that and abide it, you are, by your grandfathers' standards, cowards.
Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. But why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayors' pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.
Now, I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Democracy is dialogue. Who will defend the core values of academia, if you, the supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."
If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does -- does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.
Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. That's what it is: New McCarthyism. But, what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?
No wonder he was smeared and ridiculed in his twilight years.
(I haven't read the book on which the movie Omega Man was based, but I'm guessing the race-mixing was a Hollywood addition. Just a wild guess.)
Labels: charlton heston, guns, media
posted by Tanstaafl at 4/07/2008 04:03:00 PM
33 Comments:
I am in agreement with your assessment of Heston's view on MLK and McCarthy, yet glad to see you publish his views on political correctness. Frankly, I had not read them before.
We do indeed live in the age of McCarthy redux; only the name of the crime has changed from communist to racist, and the accusers multiplied in number and influence.
God bless,
Laurel
p.s. evidence shows that McCarthy was correct about the political affiliations of many of those he accused.
Heston was an honorable man, and a man of integrity although as you say, he did not completely challenge the PC orthodoxies of the time.
Laurel is right; McCarthy's allegations were substantially true, and it's incredible how few people are aware of the fact.
As for the Omega Man movie, in the original story, "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson, the interracial angle was not there, and the villains were not pasty-faced albinos as in the movie. But in 1969 Hollywood the PC element had started creeping into every movie.
-VA
When you're the poster child (even an unwarranted one) for a movement on the scale of the "Red Scare" - the truth becomes meaningless (a page 17 redaction).
Clearly bozos like Clooney et al either dont care about the truth or wish only to line their pockets with popcorn money. Probably both.
Let's face it, a movie where McCarthy is the misjudged hero and victim of an evil liberal conspiracy wont sell at the box office.
Cant speak intelligently on the MLK remark without further research (aka deprogramming) but his speeches are still inspirational and resonate today.
I agree 100% VA - and now film and television (especially advertising, which is often created by movie director - wanna-be's) is a full-blown anti-White propaganda machine.
(Hello VA and best wishes by the way! I have not seen you in some time, since your blog was removed. I hope you have been well, and God bless!)
- Billy
McCarthy and MLK were both popular advocates for their races, and both were afflicted with character flaws.
The difference in how the liberal conventional wisdom treats them is instructive. McCarthy is portrayed as a goat, his very name an epithet, his character flaws exaggerated and mocked. Meanwhile MLK is portrayed as a saint, his name a blessing, his character flaws minimized or ignored.
This, very simply, is because Whites have been losing the culture war of which Heston speaks. The symptoms he describes are the consequences of that trend.
Hyper-ethnocentric jews have been clawing their way to positions of power in the US for decades. They resent the White Christians they're displacing. They now clearly hold the upper hand. Having demonized and destroyed White racial consciousness they now sniff out and attack even unconscious signs.
Old Chuck said too little, too late. If he had said more sooner he would have gotten an even stronger taste of the McCarthy treatment. Now that he's a Dead White Man he will anyway.
Tanstaafl,
Why do you say that McCarthy was an advocate for his race? Not disagreeing, just curious- I have never heard of any racialist views he might have had.
And ditto the hello to VA- I haven't been able to access the VA blog recently.
Jim, it would have been more accurate to describe McCarthy as an unwitting or crypto White advocate, as he was in his time, but I did not want to mince words or diminish his stature. Today we know better what McCarthy opposed and what happened in the wake of his defeat.
In the 1950s the "culture war" was considered even more of a "conspiracy theory" than it is today. Unabashed pro-Whites were still in positions of power and weren't necessarily philo-semitic. Today of course philo-semitism and pro-zionism are absolute requirements. Back then Whites were were 90% of the population. A decade later Whites lost both the segregation and immigration battles. Four after that our borders are wide open and Whites are less than 66% and declining rapidly. Back then many people still remembered the jewish enthusiasm for the Bolshevik revolution and the bloodbath that followed. Today, despite McCarthy's efforts, pro-jew "red diaper babies" are holding positions of power in the US. Pro-black, pro-latino, and pro-asian power holders are also common. But no pro-Whites hold power. Back then it was it was a simple fact that communists were disproportionately jewish and illegal mexicans could be rounded up and deported. Today it is "hate-speech" to say this, but calling the White race a cancer that should be destroyed or "pilgrims" who should go back to Europe is not.
In McCarthy's time Whites generally considered their position threatened but secure. McCarthy was popular with ordinary White Americans because they instinctively knew he was fighting hostile alien infiltration at the top. They knew he represented their interests without needing to identify them as White interests. Today it is specifically because the hostile alien infiltration is farther progressed that we can see the conflict more clearly in terms of a culture war - even though it is "politically incorrect" to do so.
The current regime is openly hostile to Whites. Our old White heroes, even the crypto ones, are smeared and diminished. They are replaced with new heroes whose primary value is being non-white. We are being flooded out of our jobs and homes by alien invaders invited and welcomed by our alien-influenced rulers. McCarthy couldn't say this because it hadn't happened yet. The least I can do is say it because it sure as hell is happening now.
Tan, Good post on Heston. It's unfortunate that he participated in the success that gave power to the group which now oppresses us by participating in the movement to crush states rights.
Marxist revisionists have turned McCarthy's name into a popular curse. They waited until five or six years after Hoover's death before getting their original national media queer (Gore Vidal) to smear him. What will the story line be on Heston?
I don't remember the name of J.Edgar Hoover's book (I think there was only one), but if you can find it in the library, he discusses the powers of those whom he admitted he would not touch. It has some good basic information (It has been years since I read it, so I can't recount too much from it).
I'm not sure how this might contribute to the discussion, but it is a link which I found interesting and which I plan to explore further. I used to watch Arnold Murray a lot and found him to be one of the most knowledgeable of people on biblical matters. I wasn't aware that he was classed in the category of British Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelites
I don't know whether you have seen information regarding Louis Thomas McFadden. A Wiki article and his speech, from Congressional Record, June 1932, are at these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Louis_Thomas_McFadden
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org
/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=McFadden1932&Entity=FedResBoard
---------
That might be the worst Wikipedia entry I've ever seen.
The one on British Israelism, that is.
Tanstaafl,
I see what you mean, and it makes sense. It is a sad commentary on the USA today that what today might be called "racialism" was in the 1950's just, for lack of a better word, "normal." People recognized it implicitly.
If you want a good example of the link between Jews and communism, read Roberty Oppenheimer's entry on Wikipedia. Almost every one of his associates suspected of communist ties (and there were a lot of them) was Jewish.
Flanders,
Hoover wrote three books. You refer to Master of Deceit?
British Israelites? WASPs are really jews? I'd hadn't heard that before. Jews however don't seem very receptive to the idea:
Modern ethnography does not confirm in any way the identification of the Irish with a Semitic people; while the English can be traced back to the Scandinavians, of whom there is no trace in Mesopotamia at any period of history. English is a branch of the Aryan stock of languages, and has no connection with Hebrew. The whole movement is chiefly interesting as a reductio ad absurdum of too literal an interpretation of the prophecies.
The Anglo-Israelite theory has of recent years been connected with the persecutions of the Jews, in which the Anglo-Israelites see further confirmation of their position by the carrying out of the threats prophesied against Judah. This side of the subject has been dealt with by T. R. Howlett in "An Anglo-Israel Jewish Problem," Philadelphia, 1892; supplement, 1894.
McFadden is a White hero (in the same crypto sense as McCarthy) I had never heard of. Thank you. Reading that brief wiki bio it's clear why he is so obscure. He saw what going on, and he openly opposed it. Today such a man would never make it into office.
Your second McFadden link doesn't work. This one does. Fascinating. In 1932 he said:
A few days ago, the President of the United States, with a white face and shaking hands, went before the Senate on behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might know that the United States would pay its debt to them. Most Americans thought it was the other way around. What do the United States owe to foreigners? When and by whom was the debt incurred? It was incurred by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks when they peddled the signature of this Government to foreigners for a price. It is what the United States Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Are you going to let those thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?
His speech corroborates the history reviewed and opinions provided in The Money Masters. You may have seen this video before. If not, it's an essential 215 minute history lesson.
Jim, good point. Venona revealed Oppenheimer and friends, and vindicated McCarthy, half a century later:
In one of the most controversial proclamations of the book, the authors declare, "we can say for certain that Oppenheimer did in fact knowingly supply classified information on the atom bomb to the Soviet Union." While he directed the Manhattan Project, it was known that J. Robert Oppenheimer’s wife, brother, and sister-in-law were all members of the Communist Party. The fact that he regularly gave a large portion of his salary to the Communist Party was also common knowledge among government officials overseeing the project. This should have made him at the least a security risk for a project with such deep ramifications for national security. It didn’t. In Venona, Oppenheimer is identified with the code-name "Veskel." One message instructs agents to "re-establish contact with ‘Veskel’…as soon as possible." In 1994, a year before the deciphered Venona cables were released, the man in charge of Soviet spying on America’s atom bomb project revealed that Oppenheimer had supplied the Soviets with classified reports on atom bomb development. These earth-shattering revelations about the man in charge of developing the atomic bomb for the United States have been met with a big yawn by academics and journalists.
Emphasis mine.
Oppenheimer was not implicated by the Venona documents, as you would know if you read reputable scholarship rather than tripe issued by Regnery for halfwits.
Well, Verona showed that the Soviets at the very least saw Oppenheimer as a potential spy, and when that's viewed in conjunction with his numerous communist associates and the allegation made by the KGB official in the 1990's, questions about Oppenheimer arise.
The general point I was making- the strong link between Jews and Communists in American history, is pretty well supported by the evidence. Here are a couple of links, anonymous:
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/spieslink.htm
and since you will likely deride MacDonald as a credible source, here' s plan B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biophys/agents
Scroll down to the Soviet Union. You notice something about an awful lot of those names?
Who and what is "reputable" is today a function of who supports or opposes the usurpers. By the troll's comment we see how it works Jim. If you oppose them you are a "halfwit". Those who split hairs over whether Oppenheimer was a card-carrying spy or not, ignoring the larger issue, are apologists for usurpers who betrayed and hijacked America.
"the Soviets at the very least saw Oppenheimer as a potential spy" is obviously very different from him actually being a spy. Duh. Meanwhile, while this hypothetical was gleaming in some KGB agent's eye, Oppenheimer in actuality was creating the most potent weapon known to man for the US.
That there were a lot of Jews in the US Communist party is not exactly a relevation to anybody who knows anything. There were and are also a lot of Jews in Wall Street, Hollywood, medical schools, and reseach laboratories. Jews tend to be at the cutting edge, being (on the average) smarter than you.
I remember how amazed I was years ago when I learned that the popular portrayal of America in the 1950's as a bunch of Red Scare crazies was totally contradicted by the evidence, and that the public's fears had been perfectly reasonable. And the way MLK and McCarthy are portrayed today really is a chilling example of the veil that is placed over the eyes of so many Americans.
I don't want to pat myself on the back for my own link, but I really hope everyone reads the wikipedia link I posted in my last post. The long list of spies who spied on the US on behalf of the USSR not only shows the huge network of communist spies present in the 1940's, but also the Jewish-Communist connection; I'd estimate about half the people on that list are Jews. Simply incredible. But I don't think I'll be reading that in a history book any time soon.
"the Soviets at the very least saw Oppenheimer as a potential spy" is obviously very different from him actually being a spy. Duh."
Go back and read my post. Note the phrase "in conjunction with."
"Meanwhile, while this hypothetical was gleaming in some KGB agent's eye, Oppenheimer in actuality was creating the most potent weapon known to man for the US."
To use in a war against Germany, a country Oppenheimer didn't exactly like. And I don't think the KGB couched his allegation as a hypothetical. He may or may note have been telling the truth, but that's not what "hypothetical" means.
"That there were a lot of Jews in the US Communist party is not exactly a relevation to anybody who knows anything. There were and are also a lot of Jews in Wall Street, Hollywood, medical schools, and reseach laboratories. Jews tend to be at the cutting edge, being (on the average) smarter than you."
Apparently a great many people in this country know nothing. How is your average Joe supposed to pick up on the Jewish-communist connection? By watching the news? By what he's taught in history class? Wall Street, medical schools, and research laboratories all require high intelligence, so Jewish overrepresentation in those areas is not surprising. Attributing the attraction Communism held for Jews to their intelligence is a bit of stretch, as you probably already know.
I've seen the Ashkenazi average IQ listed as anywhere between 108-115. You may be in awe of that, but others aren't; there's nothing remarkable about a 115 IQ in terms of intelligence. I think the current president can match that figure.
Half of Soviet spies during the communist years were Jewish? Hmmm, how . . . cutting edge of them. Oh those zany, hip Jews!
Truth about Einstein:
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?
Marx was nothing compared to Proudhon and I can go on and on.
jews aren't "dumb" and no one is saying that. Leave now interloper because no one is fooled.
To use in a war against Germany, a country Oppenheimer didn't exactly like.
So? Is that supposed to invalidate his contribution somehow?
Apparently a great many people in this country know nothing.
Well, that's certainly true.
Attributing the attraction Communism held for Jews to their intelligence is a bit of stretch, as you probably already know.
Communism and other left-wing movements were very attractive to the intellgentsia in general in the first half of the 20th century, and Jews were over-represented there for the usual reasons. The relationship of the left and Jews is more complex than that, granted.
Advanced physics isn't a shortcut to insightful living or intelligence.
So who are your icons of intelligence?
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?
Ah yes, that piece also claims that "cold fusion is one of the fundamental pillars of science", and the web site is full of parapsychology and other nonsense. In short, it's for morons.
Alright, I'm done. What a pathetic lot you folks are.
"To use in a war against Germany, a country Oppenheimer didn't exactly like.
So? Is that supposed to invalidate his contribution somehow?"
I took your ealier comment to mean that Oppenheimer's crucial work for the US made charges of him spying for the Soviets ridiculous. But building a bomb for the US to use against Germany is not exlcusive with being a communist spy and/or sympathizer. I think most communists the world over wanted to see Germany defeated, given the Nazis' feelings on communism.
"Apparently a great many people in this country know nothing.
Well, that's certainly true."
It is indeed. Do you begrudge us the right to discuss an issue of which so much of the American public is ignorant? In order to correct Americans' ignorance, our history books should be changed to make clear that domestic communism (and the role Jews played in it) was at one time a genuine threat to the United States, not some boogeyman that was dreamed up by McCarthy. At the very least, we can discuss it online, where at least a few Americans can learn of it.
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?
Ah yes, that piece also claims that "cold fusion is one of the fundamental pillars of science", and the web site is full of parapsychology and other nonsense. In short, it's for morons.
So what?
Are the allegations true?
Can you disprove the charges without resorting to a logical fallacy?
So who are your icons of intelligence?
Jesus, Qohelet and anybody else that starts with the true premise that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Alright, I'm done. What a pathetic lot you folks are.
Woe to us when men speak well of us.
Still, I can't help but wonder what sort of charitable feeling you had that compelled you to attempt to shine the light of truth upon our despised lot in the first place?
Perhaps contempt is simply an insuppressible emotion inside of those accustomed to shitting all over everyone.
May you live in interesting times.
May you live in interesting times.
Unless he's about to die in the next five - ten years maximum, he surely will live in interesting times.
He'll see his treasured liberal fantasies consumed in the flames of a revolution, or in the hell of White genocide and the subsequent condemnation of humanity to savagery and regression that holds no hope for reversal.
Argh, can't stay away:
Jesus, Qohelet and anybody else that starts with the true premise that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
You do know that both your named heroes are Jews, yes? And while fear of the Lord may be an admirable trait, it has fuck-all to do with intelligence, which is what we were talking about. You seem like a deeply confused person.
Still, I can't help but wonder what sort of charitable feeling you had that compelled you to attempt to shine the light of truth upon our despised lot in the first place?
I read right-wing blogs for amusement and to remind myself that there are people with very different worldviews out there. I saw the allegations about Oppenheimer and was curious to see if they were true. 15 seconds of Googling revealed that they were false, and it's hard to let falsehoods stand.
But clearly nobody's mind is going to be changed here, so it's a waste of time. Good bye again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You do know that both your named heroes are Jews, yes?
Really?
I must re-evaluate my entire existence now. I had no idea Jesus was a Jew and that The Preacher might be a Jew as well!
Are you so foolish as to believe I am so foolish that I must hate with my every fiber each and every jew in the universe?
Additionally, the Bible is explicit on what a Jew is:
Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
And while fear of the Lord may be an admirable trait, it has fuck-all to do with intelligence, which is what we were talking about.
It had everything to do with what I was talking about.
It is the beginning of wisdom (the only "intelligence" I place any value upon) and thus foundational to any and all intelligence. I stated that "intelligence" itself is in the eye of the beholder - that is, it is subjective - and have now sufficiently explained the kind of intelligence I place value on.
You might perceive becoming "Death, the destroyer of Worlds," as intelligent but I see it as foolishness.
You seem like a deeply confused person.
Quick to pass judgment as well! Quite a pack of endearing traits you possess and flaunt!
You, my friend, are the one drawn like a moth to our flame and the reverse does not hold true. I don't frequent your blog.
I read right-wing blogs for amusement and to remind myself that there are people with very different worldviews out there.
That is admirable indeed. Good to expose one's self to opposing interpretations of facts. The difference between you and I in regards to the question of jewish spies infiltrating the Manhattan project, is my knowledge about jews and judaism leads me to interpret the facts available to us in a manner that casts doubt upon the sanctioned (by the majority) interpretation. Still, I remain willing to be persuaded that perhaps I interpret falsely.
You will find that we are willing to debate with considerable restraint and civility since we consider it the mark of a civilized White man.
I saw the allegations about Oppenheimer and was curious to see if they were true. 15 seconds of Googling revealed that they were false, and it's hard to let falsehoods stand.
One can just "Google" one's way to the truth now-a-day huh?
I'm impressed.
15 Minutes to the Truth! O Brave New World!
Where does this burning desire of yours to eradicate falsehood stem from? What worldview do you subscribe to that pushes you to seek to eradicate falsehood that the truth may flourish?
I read the link you posted and it doesn't really "prove" either point of view on the subject. If your view of epistemology is that shallow, you have bigger problems than can be addressed in this format.
But clearly nobody's mind is going to be changed here, so it's a waste of time. Good bye again.
Not true.
A Baseless assertion.
Additionally, the facts about Opp are inessential and irrelevant to the post above.
The loss of the Culture War is the topic of discussion.
We lost and we here are bewailing our fate, the result of that crushing defeat. You should gloat victoriously instead of arguing over things inconsequential.
You won!
We are marginalized and you can force feed everything you believe down the throats of the young with reckless abandon and no consequence to stature or career.
You, earlier:
jews are more cunning on average...They have no coherent moral vision or teleology. They are incapable of anything but whispering in the ears of the king.
Yet your moral heroes are Jews. Like I said, you seem to be confused.
I read the link you posted and it doesn't really "prove" either point of view on the subject. If your view of epistemology is that shallow, you have bigger problems than can be addressed in this format.
Well, you are right, nothing is really going to get "proven" about a historical issue that is this obscured and controversial. Let's say, "shown to my satisfaction", in that reputable scholars say he was not a spy, whereas the people who say he was are sources that I don't trust. Everybody has to decide for themselves who to trust. I could be wrong; perhaps every turd that issues forth from the sphincter of Regnery Press is in reality god's own truth. But I doubt it.
Here's another article, from the conservative press, which basically exonerates him from spy charges, while being deeply critical.
It is a very interesting question of how you decide who to trust. For instance, it is completely obvious to me that the article on Einstein that you cited is crap from a crap website. But who knows? All of the history of science in the 20th century could be wrong, and AULIS Online could be right. But I doubt it. In the internet age, anybody can put whatever they like online, and the information consumer has to figure out who to believe. Exciting, isn't it? You and your fellow losers can band together and form your own little reality, and believe whomever you want. Knock yourselves out.
You should gloat victoriously instead of arguing over things inconsequential.
OK. Gloat.
Yet your moral heroes are Jews. Like I said, you seem to be confused.
Averages and generalizing.
Are these concepts you are capable of understanding?
I also thought that the Scripture I quoted would clear up for you what a real Jew is but you don't seem to understand.
Not to mention whether or not Ashkenazi jews are even related to the genetically Semitic Christ.
Let's say, "shown to my satisfaction", in that reputable scholars say he was not a spy, whereas the people who say he was are sources that I don't trust. Everybody has to decide for themselves who to trust. I could be wrong; perhaps every turd that issues forth from the sphincter of Regnery Press is in reality god's own truth. But I doubt it.
I think I gave you the wrong impression yesterday.
I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the issue of Opp since I have not read enough on the subject and am open to be persuaded either direction but it is inconsequential and irrelevant to the post.
For instance, it is completely obvious to me that the article on Einstein that you cited is crap from a crap website.
Are the sources of the author fraudulent or incorrect? One of the people he quotes is a jew.
You have again resorted to a fallacious reasoning. Are the assertions and charges about Einstein in the website true or false? Do you know who Lorentz and Poincare are? Do you know who Isaac Newton is?
But who knows?
I don't.
All of the history of science in the 20th century could be wrong, and AULIS Online could be right.
History is neither right nor wrong since it is an abstraction and your anthropomorphizing does it no service.
But I doubt it. In the internet age, anybody can put whatever they like online, and the information consumer has to figure out who to believe.
Only in the Internet age has that become true?
Are you not familiar with the age-old adage "Believe half of what you see, nothing of what you hear?" Truth is heavy and there are few who wish to carry it and it has always been thus.
Exciting, isn't it?
Yes.
You and your fellow losers can band together and form your own little reality, and believe whomever you want. Knock yourselves out.
One can not alter reality. One can only interpret it. My reality, again, starts simply with the premise that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
My set of presuppositions is entirely different from most others, even those that frequent this website.
You are displaying behavior typical of my generation (X). You are rude and call people that you don't agree with names.
I hope you choose to discuss utilizing proper etiquette or not at all.
Re: The Weekly Standard Article
1)It is not a "conservative" publication by my definition of conservative.
2)The entire article implicates Opp in some degree of spying in my opinion but the conclusion is that there is no consensus so who are you to come in here and state that you "Googled" your way to the truth in 15 minutes when scholars agree that they don't really know?
"Communism and other left-wing movements were very attractive to the intellgentsia in general in the first half of the 20th century, and Jews were over-represented there for the usual reasons."
The classic apologia: action without agency. Marzism materialized out of thin air. Your argument:
Marxism was attractive to the intelligentsia in general in the first half of the 20th century.
Jews were overrepresented in the intelligentsia.
Therefore, Jews were overrepresented among Marxists.
Of course, this has the arrow of causation backwards. The truth:
Marxism was an ideology designed to serve Jewish interests.
Jews were overrepresented in the intelligentsia.
As a result -- through indoctrination, intimidation, incentivization, and imitation -- Marxism (allegedly) was made attractive to the intelligentsia in general in the first half of the 20th century.
Post a Comment
<< Home