I am posting this compilation purely as a basis for discussion and because it is the only way I can see to upload in particular the following conversation between Matthew Raphael Johnson and Andrew Carrington Hitchcock as the archived link is no longer active.
• "Atrocity propaganda [porn] is how we won the war. And we're only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final.
• Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
Sefton Delmer – former Jewish chief of British/Australian ‘Black propaganda’ in a conversation with Dr Friedrich Grimm (German Professor of International Law)
Hi, Julius. I did get a chance to listen to this. I think there are some logical fallacies, that I'll outline below:
1. He says the motive for claiming King Leopold committed atrocities is anti-white hatred. Why would a king represent all whites rather than represent all royalty, if he represented anyone? Certainly other rulers of empires have more in common with him than your average white person.
2. He states that King Leopold 'owned' the Congo as his personal possession, so why would he commit genocide on his workforce? So MRJ sees it as perfectly okay that Leopold 'owns' the land of the Congo and all of its inhabitants. That itself isn't an atrocity, according to him. It's the form of subjugation and if it was too harsh that matters. I don't agree.
3. He sees Leopold as only interested in exploitation not genocide, since rubber saved the Belgian empire from bankruptcy. No slaveowner wants genocide--they want their slaves to be docile and obedient. Whips, severed hands and killing is only necessary when they rebel.
4. MRJ says Leopold was against slave trafficking. Well, duh. It's his slavery-in-place that they'd be poaching from. The resource and labor colony is much more efficient, as the East India Company showed.
5. He says that Leopold launched a commission to investigate the atrocities when brought to his attention a few months before his death. At that point, all of this was already coming out.
6. He claims Leopold didn't have the manpower with the Force Republic to commit these acts. In a hierarchy, you don't need to outnumber the colonized. You can control the few who control the many who control the rest.
7. MRJ doesn't differentiate 'atrocity porn' from evidence of atrocities. It seems dangerous to say that anyone who shows evidence of atrocities is therefore trying to manipulate public sentiment. It makes all journalists and whistleblowers suspect for their motives.
8. The hero of Adam Hochschild's book, ED Morel, didn't base his conclusions on atrocities. He started with simple statistics and observations of shipping bills. Those told the story that this wasn't trade but exploitation. The weapons going to the Congo were irrefutable, the lack of any payment, the ivory and rubber coming back. But MRJ's okay with all that, to him it's only when it goes too far that exploitation and colonization is bad. As he says "Leopold was looking to 'develop' the Congo". I wonder if MRJ would be okay with his family being 'developed' in that way.
9. I think it does Hitler a disservice to make the comparison that Leopold was the same because 'atrocity porn' was used against both. Hitler wasn't building an empire, he was reclaiming land taken after WWI. He was enabling Germans to provide for themselves economically, not exploit colonies. If Leopold had built an economic system so that Belgium would be self-reliant, I'd be defending him. But whether 10M were killed or simply and 'humanely' forced to spend their lives supplying rubber doesn't change the basic premise. Leopold 'owned' people, which makes him a slaveowner no matter what name he uses.
Thank you Tereza – I will just let most of your points of order stand. The central point that you make is one that I omitted and actually meant to come back to, and that is: “What was Leopold doing there in the first place?” But then we could (and should) ask “What was [_____] doing in [_____] in the first place?” One pair of inserts could be Rothschild” and “Palestine”.
Otherwise, I stand with MRJ in his overall ‘argument’– he is speaking ‘live’ and may well have refined the wording of some passages differently if he was writing it down and editing.
Just on one key point, though – there IS a clear agenda and programme by SOME ‘jews’ to eradicate the ENTIRE White race.
This comes broadly under the heading “Kalergi Plan’, albeit I am sure that not every champion of anti-White causes are acutely aware of this programme.
Hello, Julius! I watched the video and read the link. I don't disagree that there is an agenda afoot. First you have military invasion and occupation--1000 US bases in other people's countries--and economic colonization, creating refugees and migrants. Then you use white guilt and 'privilege' to take responsibility for the people who've been driven out for the power and profits of the oligarchs, but you're 'mitigating' the damage at the expense of the middle class. And the damage, of course, has been inflicted by the poverty class using the economic draft.
And while you're guilting the middle class into taking in all the people whose lives have been ruined for the profits of the oligarchs, you can take the country out from under them and give the best of it to the oligarch class. Ashkenazis, Khazarians, Chinese and Japanese are all considered white. The Harvard case against Affirmative Action was won by Asians. So it's opening up immigration and higher education to the children of Chinese oligarchs. That's who our 15-min beehive cities w/o cars are being built for. I have a draft episode (title, really) on Shanghaied Cities.
How would we write a policy, at the commonwealth or even personal level, to thwart this with no proper nouns? Black Lives Matter, for instance, is an unethical statement because before you can say what, you have to specify who (and the virtue signaling even with All Lives Matter is evident, because it implies 'to me but not to you, obvi!')
If we were to say 'All people should return to their country of ethnic origin,' I'd have most of me in Germany with an arm in Ireland and a pinky in England. My daughters would have one leg (wearing a boot) in Italy and one in Yugoslavia. If we say, "All people start from wherever they are now and stay there," it would reward the settlers who've just bulldozed a Palestinian house or cleared Gaza. Region of birth? Where your ancestors were 100 yrs ago? All problematic, imo.
If we were to say there should be no intermarriage between races or even clans, we'd be following the Yahwist playbook. Yahweh doesn't mind a little rape of daughters, daughters-in-law, perhaps grandsons or sons, or sisters because that keeps it all in the family. What Yahweh cannot tolerate is intermarriage with Canaanite women. That he punishes with exile and being disinherited.
What the Hebrews, Sephardics, Khazars and Ashkenazis refused to do is assimilate into the cultures they'd infiltrated. They kept loyalty to their own. I think that's the heart of the problem, not the solution.
Great comment – so much agreeable content – impossible to unpack in one response. I look forward to your ‘Shanghaied Cities’ concept.
Assimilation is the key word – it appears that ‘they’ all belong to the ‘Anti-Assimilation Anonymous’ group. Solzhenitsyn wrote about it in detail, and also see Ford, Eli James et al. I predict that it is only a matter of time before they replace the stars and stripes in all those military bases with some other flag featuring the demonic star of Remphan. That appears to be Trump’s role and why he was held in the wings under the theatrical cover of ‘stolen elections’ for this current onslaught – they have deadlines.
Multiculturalism = the dilution and ultimate eradication from historical memory of EVERYONE’s culture, and Diversity = the exact opposite of diversity in the melting pot. So cui bon? And I get on just fine with my Uzbek and Kurdish neighbours – they are by no means ‘the problem’.
Yes, so it's 'assimilation for thee but not for me.' I really have to read Solzhenitsyn. And exactly right, everything's the opposite of what they mean.
I will have to do a Mention of Solzhenitsyn with links. Pauline alerted me to the fact that Pete Quinones is currently doing a reading of 200 Years Together with special commentary by Matthew Raphael Johnson.
This is going to be a long series - I am just trying to catch up then keep up as 'comfort reading'. I have listened to it before but now is study time.
Oh excellent, Julius! You're the second time today that I've been proven stupendously wrong, and I'm loving it!
I haven't listened yet but your quotes explain the mystery of how evidence of the atrocities could coexist with them being propaganda--a different culprit and perpetrator.
And isn't it good news that 10M Congolese may not have been killed? I always wonder about those who are indignant that the ubiquitous 6M would be questioned. Why wouldn't we want to release the past of its burden of horror?
I'm still not sure it lets King Leopold off the hook, however. He appointed Tippu Tip governor and I think that someone can only lie to you with your permission. But I will listen and see if I'm wrong again!
• "Atrocity propaganda [porn] is how we won the war. And we're only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final.
• Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”
Sefton Delmer – former Jewish chief of British/Australian ‘Black propaganda’ in a conversation with Dr Friedrich Grimm (German Professor of International Law)
I was just taking a second look at that picture of Tippu Tip and the following came to mind …
• That's Not a Knife! …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDHpKNSibsI
Wonderful reference, JS. You put a lot of work into this. Thanks. Jeff
Thank you Jeff. Several hours :-) Thanks to Tereza for bringing this discussion on.
Hi, Julius. I did get a chance to listen to this. I think there are some logical fallacies, that I'll outline below:
1. He says the motive for claiming King Leopold committed atrocities is anti-white hatred. Why would a king represent all whites rather than represent all royalty, if he represented anyone? Certainly other rulers of empires have more in common with him than your average white person.
2. He states that King Leopold 'owned' the Congo as his personal possession, so why would he commit genocide on his workforce? So MRJ sees it as perfectly okay that Leopold 'owns' the land of the Congo and all of its inhabitants. That itself isn't an atrocity, according to him. It's the form of subjugation and if it was too harsh that matters. I don't agree.
3. He sees Leopold as only interested in exploitation not genocide, since rubber saved the Belgian empire from bankruptcy. No slaveowner wants genocide--they want their slaves to be docile and obedient. Whips, severed hands and killing is only necessary when they rebel.
4. MRJ says Leopold was against slave trafficking. Well, duh. It's his slavery-in-place that they'd be poaching from. The resource and labor colony is much more efficient, as the East India Company showed.
5. He says that Leopold launched a commission to investigate the atrocities when brought to his attention a few months before his death. At that point, all of this was already coming out.
6. He claims Leopold didn't have the manpower with the Force Republic to commit these acts. In a hierarchy, you don't need to outnumber the colonized. You can control the few who control the many who control the rest.
7. MRJ doesn't differentiate 'atrocity porn' from evidence of atrocities. It seems dangerous to say that anyone who shows evidence of atrocities is therefore trying to manipulate public sentiment. It makes all journalists and whistleblowers suspect for their motives.
8. The hero of Adam Hochschild's book, ED Morel, didn't base his conclusions on atrocities. He started with simple statistics and observations of shipping bills. Those told the story that this wasn't trade but exploitation. The weapons going to the Congo were irrefutable, the lack of any payment, the ivory and rubber coming back. But MRJ's okay with all that, to him it's only when it goes too far that exploitation and colonization is bad. As he says "Leopold was looking to 'develop' the Congo". I wonder if MRJ would be okay with his family being 'developed' in that way.
9. I think it does Hitler a disservice to make the comparison that Leopold was the same because 'atrocity porn' was used against both. Hitler wasn't building an empire, he was reclaiming land taken after WWI. He was enabling Germans to provide for themselves economically, not exploit colonies. If Leopold had built an economic system so that Belgium would be self-reliant, I'd be defending him. But whether 10M were killed or simply and 'humanely' forced to spend their lives supplying rubber doesn't change the basic premise. Leopold 'owned' people, which makes him a slaveowner no matter what name he uses.
Thank you Tereza – I will just let most of your points of order stand. The central point that you make is one that I omitted and actually meant to come back to, and that is: “What was Leopold doing there in the first place?” But then we could (and should) ask “What was [_____] doing in [_____] in the first place?” One pair of inserts could be Rothschild” and “Palestine”.
Otherwise, I stand with MRJ in his overall ‘argument’– he is speaking ‘live’ and may well have refined the wording of some passages differently if he was writing it down and editing.
Just on one key point, though – there IS a clear agenda and programme by SOME ‘jews’ to eradicate the ENTIRE White race.
• White Genocide in practice
https://goyimtv.com/v/3770467053/White-Genocide-in-practice
This comes broadly under the heading “Kalergi Plan’, albeit I am sure that not every champion of anti-White causes are acutely aware of this programme.
• The Anti-White Agenda of Jewish Ad Agencies
https://birthofanewearthblog.com/the-anti-white-agenda-of-jewish-ad-agencies/
Hello, Julius! I watched the video and read the link. I don't disagree that there is an agenda afoot. First you have military invasion and occupation--1000 US bases in other people's countries--and economic colonization, creating refugees and migrants. Then you use white guilt and 'privilege' to take responsibility for the people who've been driven out for the power and profits of the oligarchs, but you're 'mitigating' the damage at the expense of the middle class. And the damage, of course, has been inflicted by the poverty class using the economic draft.
And while you're guilting the middle class into taking in all the people whose lives have been ruined for the profits of the oligarchs, you can take the country out from under them and give the best of it to the oligarch class. Ashkenazis, Khazarians, Chinese and Japanese are all considered white. The Harvard case against Affirmative Action was won by Asians. So it's opening up immigration and higher education to the children of Chinese oligarchs. That's who our 15-min beehive cities w/o cars are being built for. I have a draft episode (title, really) on Shanghaied Cities.
How would we write a policy, at the commonwealth or even personal level, to thwart this with no proper nouns? Black Lives Matter, for instance, is an unethical statement because before you can say what, you have to specify who (and the virtue signaling even with All Lives Matter is evident, because it implies 'to me but not to you, obvi!')
If we were to say 'All people should return to their country of ethnic origin,' I'd have most of me in Germany with an arm in Ireland and a pinky in England. My daughters would have one leg (wearing a boot) in Italy and one in Yugoslavia. If we say, "All people start from wherever they are now and stay there," it would reward the settlers who've just bulldozed a Palestinian house or cleared Gaza. Region of birth? Where your ancestors were 100 yrs ago? All problematic, imo.
If we were to say there should be no intermarriage between races or even clans, we'd be following the Yahwist playbook. Yahweh doesn't mind a little rape of daughters, daughters-in-law, perhaps grandsons or sons, or sisters because that keeps it all in the family. What Yahweh cannot tolerate is intermarriage with Canaanite women. That he punishes with exile and being disinherited.
What the Hebrews, Sephardics, Khazars and Ashkenazis refused to do is assimilate into the cultures they'd infiltrated. They kept loyalty to their own. I think that's the heart of the problem, not the solution.
Great comment – so much agreeable content – impossible to unpack in one response. I look forward to your ‘Shanghaied Cities’ concept.
Assimilation is the key word – it appears that ‘they’ all belong to the ‘Anti-Assimilation Anonymous’ group. Solzhenitsyn wrote about it in detail, and also see Ford, Eli James et al. I predict that it is only a matter of time before they replace the stars and stripes in all those military bases with some other flag featuring the demonic star of Remphan. That appears to be Trump’s role and why he was held in the wings under the theatrical cover of ‘stolen elections’ for this current onslaught – they have deadlines.
Multiculturalism = the dilution and ultimate eradication from historical memory of EVERYONE’s culture, and Diversity = the exact opposite of diversity in the melting pot. So cui bon? And I get on just fine with my Uzbek and Kurdish neighbours – they are by no means ‘the problem’.
Yes, so it's 'assimilation for thee but not for me.' I really have to read Solzhenitsyn. And exactly right, everything's the opposite of what they mean.
I will have to do a Mention of Solzhenitsyn with links. Pauline alerted me to the fact that Pete Quinones is currently doing a reading of 200 Years Together with special commentary by Matthew Raphael Johnson.
Part 1 to Page 7
https://rumble.com/v664s8y-reading-solzhenitsyns-200-years-together-w-dr.-matthew-raphael-johnson-part.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp
https://odysee.com/@Freemanbeyondthewall:d/200ytpt1:e
This is going to be a long series - I am just trying to catch up then keep up as 'comfort reading'. I have listened to it before but now is study time.
Oh excellent, Julius! You're the second time today that I've been proven stupendously wrong, and I'm loving it!
I haven't listened yet but your quotes explain the mystery of how evidence of the atrocities could coexist with them being propaganda--a different culprit and perpetrator.
And isn't it good news that 10M Congolese may not have been killed? I always wonder about those who are indignant that the ubiquitous 6M would be questioned. Why wouldn't we want to release the past of its burden of horror?
I'm still not sure it lets King Leopold off the hook, however. He appointed Tippu Tip governor and I think that someone can only lie to you with your permission. But I will listen and see if I'm wrong again!
Indeed, well done + thank you Julius. Real history is so much more fascinating:-)
"historical fiction" = "fictory" :-)