"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity...

>"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.”

How could somebody who writes such touching, innocent books for children be so evil and racist?

Other urls found in this thread:

somethingawful.com/news/bargain-book-bin-3/
people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-is-conservatism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Unaipon
independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-rothschild-libel-why-has-it-taken-200-years-for-an-anti-semitic-slur-that-emerged-from-the-10216101.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>In an effort that was hushed up until today, Dahl’s world-renowned children’s books were heavily edited to remove content that expressed his contempt for women, blacks, the disabled, and other groups Dahl enjoyed marginalizing, often with over-the-top stereotypes.

>Even “Matilda,” that super-rare Dahl book with a heroic female lead, was actually about a “devilish little hussy,” until editor Stephen Roxburgh removed Dahl’s woman-hating content from the original manuscript. “The Witches” and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” also received extreme makeovers to cut back on misogynist and racist content, respectively. Dahl once memorably called Cinderella a “dirty slut.”

It's like that somethingawful parody of Brian Jacques where his editor asked him to stop calling moles "niggers." What do you think the original manuscripts read like?

Wow. Childhood ruined.

>that somethingawful parody of Brian Jacques
I hadn't read that before, it's fantastic. Thanks.
somethingawful.com/news/bargain-book-bin-3/

>An unhappy and bullied little boy, in adulthood he longed for the kind of dominance he never achieved as a child. Even from his earliest days, he was a hateful little fuck. He began one prep school essay, "Sometimes there is a great advantage in traveling to hot countries, where niggers dwell. They will give you many valuable things."

>In Jeremy Treglown's biography of Roald Dahl he reports that according to a friend, Dahl said:
>I am all fucked out. That goddamn woman has absolutely screwed me from one end of the room to the other for three goddam nights. I went back to the Ambassador this morning, and I said, "You know it's a great assignment, but I just can't go on." And the Ambassador said, "Roald, did you ever see the Charles Laughton movie of Henry VIII?" And I said "Yes." "Well," he said, "do you remember the scene with Henry going into the bedroom with Anne of Cleves, and he turns and says 'The things I've done for England'? Well, that's what you've got to do."

> I mean, there's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere

Anti-anything groups are usually whiny faggots.
As for his antisemitism, Dahl was considered by his peers to be an inconsistent and emotional man whose opinions varied from one minute to the next.

Jesus Christ, Raimi

>His reaction to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie ensured his knighting would never occur, for he wrote to The Times of London that the man was "a dangerous opportunist." (His real jealousy likely oriented around the fact that Rushdie had won a Booker Prize and he hadn't.) People started to distance themselves from the old man in droves. When Martin Amis told Dahl he was about to have dinner with Rushdie, Dahl responded, "Tell him he's a shit."

Who was in the wrong here?

RUSHDIE A SHIT! A SHIT!!

Hitler was a nice person that loved children.

>taken from the Times of Israel

Rushdie is a hack

Dahl was literally brain-damaged

I attended the same secondly school as him
none of this surprises me

Is it the sort of place that nurtures bigots?

>one of the better British private schools

This is the standard, common opinion of Jews, and everyone knows it. The kicker is that Jews think the solution is to suppress it, and to use their (empirically true) positions of power and influence in society to enforce that suppression. What they don't realize is that the SENTIMENT IS BORN OF EXACTLY THAT BEHAVIOR.

A minority of chauvinistic Jews really fuck it up for the rest of them, by playing to the natural human chauvinism of any threatened in-group, and steering that group in the direction of more and more chauvinism. Jews in France and Germany before WW1 were headed toward total integration. Now the whole thing is locked in a death spiral between a minority of obsessive anti-semites and a minority of obsessive ADL type Jews.

>literally chocolate people who make chocolate

Clever.

ever vigilant

>publishing houses Jewish
>Complains about related workplace experience

>This is the standard, common opinion of Jews

Lol, most people don't even care.

try working in a law firm for a few years or being in a well to do country club

>his real jealousy
Lol, these fucking people

What a lad.

Comfy as well, he had a writing hut/neet cave where he wrote in an armchair under a blanket.

>It's like that somethingawful parody of Brian Jacques where his editor asked him to stop calling moles "niggers."

Reading this was as funny as reading the original article for some reason.

>standard, common opinion
Most people don't work in law firms or belong to a country club, user. People hate rich Jews, wow, no shit. Just like lots of people hate lucrative industries (law, medicine, business, tech giants) in general. Most people have met like 0-3 Jews dude.

>try working in a law firm for a few years or being in a well to do country club
>This is the standard, common opinion of Jews
?

Yes because Jews tend to congregate in major urban environments, where money and vice just happen to be concentrated. And there they use their usurious skills and general disregard for God's non-chosen people, the Goyim, to climb whatever ladders of power they can and then pulling it up behind them for non-Jews.

Some sort of radicalism is Veeky Forums. Antisemitism is very Veeky Forums.

Look man I disagree with your bullshit but that's not the point. I'm talking about whether your far-right views are common, and they're honestly not, except on Veeky Forums and probably in your peer groups. Does that distinction make sense in your little stormfag mind, faggot? I'm not going to be persuaded by your cartoonish belief that a group which is genetically like 60-80% white are somehow magically attracted to law firms because they evolved for hundreds of thousands of years to be office rats in their ancestral deserts of Palestine. I don't care, I've heard it all before and I used to believe it myself. That's not the point. The point is that Veeky Forums is not representative of the majority.

Of course they're not. My conservative, virtuous and frankly wise perspective can only be shared by those who have the effort to transcend their beastly origins. And thanks to your Jewish allies, the growing mulatto underclass which will soon replace the fair and once-noble Whites are destined to toil away with their limited mental capacity and baboon-like impulses forever ignorant of the hook-nosed, beady-eyed moral lepers who profit from the squalid mundanity of their existence.

>I don't care, I've heard it all before and I used to believe it myself

Yeah, sure you did Haim. I have made zero claims that Veeky Forums represents anything beyond itself you dumb kike. I thought you people were supposed to be G-d's chosen intellectuals? You don't seem very adept at comprehending basic English.

>mullato slaves are somehow a feasible conspiracy theory despite automation being far quicker to happen than universal racemixing possibly could
>everyone who disagrees with me is jewish

This is why most people think you're paranoid retards. Most of us don't really spend that much time thinking about Jews, user. Sorry to break it to you.

The point is that insofar people have an opinion of Jews, insofar as their mind categorizes Jews separately, they have that opinion.

Incidentally, now you have average schmucks who are completely disconnected from this casual antisemitism of the gentile social elites, but they hate Jews because of Israel. You'd be surprised how "folk"-antisemitic blacks and hispanics are, and how they selectively wield SJW anger against AIPAC while dismissing "shhhh that's antisemitic!" pushback as part of the white/Jew establishment.

The world is becoming a very hostile place for Jews again. Like, very very hostile.

>literally a cliché

>their limited mental capacity and baboon-like impulses forever ignorant of the hook-nosed, beady-eyed moral lepers who profit from the squalid mundanity of their existence
you are so wrong, visit any rap site and you have black people complaining about them jewish producers.

>The world is becoming a very hostile place for Jews again. Like, very very hostile.

And yet again they will portray themselves as an oppressed and powerless minority despite their vast over-representation in any industry which affords them power and wealth regardless of its moral status. Just look at Sweden. It has gone from a 95%+ White country to a country which is projected to be majority non-White by 2051. And who owns Sweden's largest TV station TV4? Which ethno-racial group does the academic who most aggressively calls for more refugees while refusing to accept they commit disproportionate amount of crimes (especially the rape of white Swedish women)? Who owns several of the largest newspapers in that country (Aftonbladet etc)? Who was responsible for promoting mass immigration to Sweden as early as the 1950s? Which ethno-religious group does the academic who has lectured far and wide about how Sweden lacks any distinct culture of its and requires mass immigration in order to attain one? Who owns the largest publishing house in that country? Who has a large stake in the largest radio station? Who is the head of the largest Nordic bank?

I guarantee you, these people all have one very unfortunate thing in common but it certainly isn't that they are all persecuted minorities.

fucking scandis and their cuck sheds

Obvious /pol/ bait is obvious

Perhaps a minority of Niggers appreciate, as best as their primitive minds allow, the vague notion that Jews are somehow profiting from their labour within the music industry in a way that is rather sinister, but the Jews understand full-well that importing hundreds of thousands of low IQ Niggers into a developed White country isn't going to make those Niggers any more civilised than a pitbull who is adopted by a [collective noun] of swans. It will simply distract Whites away from the Jews while creating a mongrel mulatto underclass which will slowly grow larger like raw sewage being pumped into a pristine lake. Niggers will never possess the capacity to do anything about their enemies even if they wanted to. They are poorly organised hoard of monkeys whose primary instincts compel them to destroy their surroundings and satisfy their libidos. They are nothing without the White man.

...

Holy fuck this is hilarious

Naziism and racialism are such tedious philosophies. You are exactly as bad as the Communists in your own way. Both of you are godless materialistic philosophies which reduce all the phenomena in the universe to base matter. Permit me to illustrate.

Nazi or racialist materialist: "Nothing can help the black man. He is innately inferior."

Communist or socialist materialist: "The black man can only be helped by changing his environment for the better. Therefore we need to implement socialist programs to "make" him better.

Freethinking dualist: "Neither genetics nor environment "makes" us who we are, because all men have an immaterial and immortal soul. Genetics versus environment is a false dichotomy produced by a godless age. The black man will improve when he chooses to improve himself. Men and nations rise or fall by their virtue or their vice."

Again:

Freethinking patriot: “I want my country to be strong and great, but it will only be strong and great if we earn it. Blood does not determine destiny. All men have a soul and virtue alone makes a distinction among men. Our own moral decadence is killing the West. The West too was barbarous once. Fundamentally we need a spiritual revival of ourselves. Mass immigration and multiculturalism should be resisted, and traitors should be deported, but good people of colour already resident here should not be persecuted or forcibly removed.”

Racialist or Neo-Nazi: “Kick out all NIGGERS and KIKES and the world would be a paradise. IQ TESTS. SKULL SHAPES. EUGENICS. CENSORSHIP. BOOK-BURNING. PROPAGANDA. VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. HEIL HITLER.”

Likewise this deterministic obsession with blood purity and Jews on the one hand and leftwing grievance-mongering and socialism on the other instead of attention to moral character as the root cause of the trouble is simply another symptom of the West's decline. Sir John Glubb has shown in his "Fall of Empires" that mass immigration, radical feminism, sexual degeneracy etc. are a feature of all civilizations in a state of decline.

people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Classical Greece had a proto-world-war called the Peloponnesian war (431 - 404 B. C.) and brought itself to ruin both by its decadence and its internecine strife long before there was a single Jew in Europe (the first mention of them being there is in the 3rd century B. C.). Degeneracy of all kinds ran wild there; bloody and needless wars between the Greek states were constantly going on. It was conquered by Macedon, Rome, and at last the Ottomans: this was because it had torn itself to pieces and collapsed into a mere shadow of its former self. So, there is proof positive for you that Jews are not singly responsible for the decline and fall of white nations. One of the greatest white peoples in history destroyed themselves long before there was a single Jew to be seen.

Britons and Germans were nothing before the Roman man came along either.

>Jews think the solution is to suppress it

Jews are semitic middle easterners, and the notion that you should have free anything (speech, press, or society in general) is one that cones purely from the ideals of the white man. Whites think other races hold these ideals and universally desire such things, but this is false. And it should come as no surprise that as jews obtain power they actively try to destroy white ideals and suppress any criticism of their behavior.

Freedom of speech is not some sort of innate white quality. It was a hard-won fight to get it on the part of a small number of great men over the millennia, and most of the intellectuals initially involved in the struggle were Englishmen, Romans, and Greeks. If not for the efforts of men like John Milton you would have no free speech. Continental Europe was absolutely destitute of it before the French Revolution. Were the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and the Inquisition Jewish? Did Jews burn William Tyndale at the stake?

Most people don't know what the hell is going on and go along with what they're told. That's no argument and those people will fall in line and therefore don't matter. Other user is right. Be a stupid, uninformed piece of cattle all you want, but expect to be made fun of when you boast about it.

Freedom of speech is something only white men are willing to fight for and enact. Other races don't care about it.

looks like a redpilled alain the bottom

This is among the stupidest shit I've ever read in my life.
Please elaborate. Tell me how no black, brown, red, or yellow man in the history of the world has ever given the least bit of a fuck about free speech.

>The point is that insofar people have an opinion of Jews, insofar as their mind categorizes Jews separately, they have that opinion.
Most people don't have "opinions about Jews". They categorize Jews separately like they do for any designation, but most people don't care one way or another. You just assume this is common to validate yourself.

>they hate Jews because of Israel
Criticizing Israel is a separate thing from hating Jews. But guess what? Your average Joe doesn't really think about Israel much. Like, at all.

>You'd be surprised how "folk"-antisemitic blacks and hispanics are, and how they selectively wield SJW anger against AIPAC while dismissing "shhhh that's antisemitic!" pushback as part of the white/Jew establishment.
Yeah, this shit is totally something that the average person encounters in their everyday life. I can't walk into a supermarket without running into black nationalists that tell me about how much they hate Jews while selectively manipulating my anger to silence me or something. Happens every day.

>The world is becoming a very hostile place for Jews again. Like, very very hostile.
The world has never really been friendly to them, but I don't think the majority cares like they did in the past. It's just that Jews are such a small minority that it only takes a small amount of antisemites relative to the general population to affect them. Even in Nazi Germany most people didn't want to exterminate Jews, they just didn't know enough or care about what was going on to them.

Again, you say "white men" when you really mean a small number of great intellects whose ideas gained traction over the course of millennia. Europeans were slaves until the Renaissance began to spread Greek and Roman ideals and the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, English ones over the continent. And yet amusingly I have seen Neo-Nazis call the French Revolution, which overthrew the horrors of censorship, suppression of free speech, lettres de cachet, the Edict of Fontainebleau etc. etc. "Jewish" (without a scrap of evidence, of course---I simply highlight this hypocrisy and absurdity and Janus-faced-ness in thought).

Baruch Spinoza was an ardent defender of free speech in the 17th century. It is pretty ironic that his was the very picture I used in this post.

You're the stupid one here. It doesn't exist and has never existed in non-white countries, whereas in nearly every white country (until recently under jewish power) it's been held and right and high value.

I know perfectly well what you think is going on, I just disagree that it really is.

Did you know writers such as Burke saw the liberalism of the French Revolution as a threat to liberty? It's not obvious why, but they indeed did:
>The fact is that what is now called “liberal democracy” refers not to the traditional Anglo-American constitution but to a rationalist reconstruction of it that has been entirely detached from the Protestant religion and the Anglo-American nationalist tradition. Far from being a time-tested form of government, this liberal-democratic ideal is something new to both America and Britain, dating only from the mid-twentieth century. The claim that liberal-democratic regimes of this kind can be maintained for long without the conservative principles they have blithely discarded is a hypothesis now being tested for the first time. Those who believe that a favorable outcome of this experiment is assured draw this conclusion not from historical or empirical evidence, for we have none. Rather, their confidence derives from the closed Lockean-rationalist system that holds them captive, preventing them from being able to anticipate any of the other quite possible outcomes before us.
americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/what-is-conservatism/

The "ideals of the white man" come from middle eastern religions.

>a small number of great intellects
... who were white men. Greeks and Romans are European too.

What? You mean Christianity? Even that has probably come to be more European in its values than jewish, but I'm no defender of Christianity because it is not our own and has negatively impacted more than it has benefited European peoples, as it was designed to do.

I actually agree with almost everything in that post, but I fail to see how "this white man advocated free speech" equates to "no non-white man has ever desired free speech."
The fact that countries outside the west haven't successfully implemented it does not mean their citizens don't care. People fucking die in places like China attempting to push for reform on these kinds of freedom. Free speech in America has not been sought out and defended exclusively by whites either. You've never fought for it or anything else in your life, you chubby stormfag fuck.

>The "ideals of the white man" come from middle eastern religions.

Or from the Enlightenment, which, as someone else pointed out, the far-right also claim had sinister Semitic roots.

>whereas in nearly every white country (until recently under jewish power) it's been held and right and high value

I just now demonstrated to you that this is untrue. It was a Greco-Roman ideal that was absent in Europe for 1,000 years during the Dark Ages and only spread abroad by the efforts of a select few great men like Voltaire and Milton.

>I'm no defender of Christianity because it is not our own and has negatively impacted more than it has benefited European peoples, as it was designed to do

Spoken like a true Nazi.

East Asians top the polls in their willingness to abolish free speech. That only enhances my argument, since blacks and most brown people aren't smart enough to even conceptualize it, and therefore obviously shouldn't be expected to care, which they of course don't, regardless of your stupid insistence that they do.

>cartoonish belief that a group which is genetically like 60-80% white are somehow magically attracted to law firms because they evolved for hundreds of thousands of years to be office rats in their ancestral deserts of Palestine
even jews themselves admit that the importance of the law and interpreting the written word in their religion has translated into success in the legal profession. seriously, judaism as a religion basically boils down to the experience of god through understanding the Laws passed down in holy words. when moses met god on sinai he was given a set of laws; the talmud is the largest jewish holy scripture and it's a collection of laws and interpretations of texts. after thousands of years of essentially being lawyers in their own religion, it's perfectly natural for them to apply these same skills to secular law practices, especially considering that in the US the law has historically been more progressive in allowing minorities to practice.

i'm pretty partial to jews (especially for Veeky Forums standards) but i'll readily admit that they've become far too influential in manipulating the media and legal establishment. any genetic reason for this is hogwash, but it's easy to see how a group that values education and success would take advantage of whatever gains various industries allowed them and then rig the game in their favor once they had a large enough influence. i don't think there was ever a consolidated effort to take over the media or law, but once these relatively progressive industries allowed Jews in, they were able to use them to gain political power

Even if I agree with this assessment, why was it absent? Because of a jewish ideology, another example of which is pervading our society now and eroding the concept of free speech.

There hasn't been a notsee in 70 years, you complete idiot.

LOL

My point is that it was thousands of years before Roman and Greek civilization brought the peoples of Northern Europe out of abject barbarian. You will not be able to name for example a single scientist or artist living within the confines of modern Britain and Germany between 2000 B. C. and 300 A. D. The tribes were constantly making war on one another other too and many practised cannibalism.

Britain was conquered in 43 A. D. and I am not aware of any man of genius that came from that place during the three centuries following. Australia was first colonized in 1788, and David Unaipon, an Australian Aboriginal man of genius, was born in 1872, less than 100 years later. He was "known as the Australian Leonardo da Vinci for his mechanical ideas," which included included "a centrifugal motor, a multi-radial wheel and a mechanical propulsion device."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Unaipon

The tyranny of the Emperors like Caligula and Nero, the tyranny of men like Draco and Phalaris had absolutely nothing to do with Jews. On the contrary the Bible is very favourable to freedom of speech. What is a chief lesson of the Old Testament? That the god-sent prophets who upbraided the people for their vices and told them the truth were censored and put to death for their pains.

Then how did Trump get elected?

P. S. General Alexandre Dumas is an example of a contradiction to your stance. He was half-black, and one of the most eminent generals in Napoleon's army, which was fighting (upon the whole) for liberty and freedom of speech as opposed to despotism and arbitrary power. "Once, when near Lisle, Dumas, with four men, attacked a post of fifty Austrians, killed six, and made sixteen prisoners. For a long time he commanded a legion of horse composed of blacks and mulattoes, who were the terror of their enemies." This disproves your assertion that black men never cared for liberty. The son of this general, Alexandre Dumas pere was one of France's greatest writers and a great advocate for liberty also.

>Greeks
>Romans
>White
i want northamerica to be rangebanned

Yes; Hazlitt was quite correct in his assessment of him:

"This man (Burke), who was a half poet and a half philosopher, has done more mischief than perhaps any other person in the world. His understanding was not competent to the discovery of any truth, but it was sufficient to palliate a falsehood; his reasons, of little weight in themselves, thrown into the scale of power, were dreadful. Without genius to adorn the beautiful, he had art to throw a dazzling veil over the deformed and disgusting; and to strew the flowers of imagination over the rotten carcass of corruption, not to prevent, but to communicate the infection. The genius of Rousseau had levelled the towers of the Bastile with dust; our zealous reformist, who would rather be doing mischief than nothing, tried, therefore, to patch them up again, by calling that loathsome dungeon the King's castle, and by fulsome adulation of the virtues of a Court strumpet."

>Roman and Greek civilization brought the peoples of Northern Europe out of abject barbarian

This is not true though. They were just decentralized and lived more quaintly. Tacitus' account itself shows how much of a misnomer "barbarian" was.

Was referring to the jewish ideology of Christianity.

And yet they were constantly making war on one another for the most foolish of reasons. You can find noble qualities in them, but I could show you traveller's accounts who discovered very noble qualities in some sub-saharan African peoples also. What one cannot maintain is that their civilizations were even comparable to those of Greece and Rome and Egypt and India.

I don't give a fuck about your outlier examples, which in this case continues to prove my point since Dumas was probably genetically no more than a quarter black and was going the extra mile to fit in. But if you're going to present outliers and pretend those prove anything, there probably isn't much point in continuing the discussion here.

Blighted by recent rape scandals

They were though. No question about it.

So what are you contending; that the Old Testament is not Jewish but Christianity is?

Had the Athenians learned well the lessons of the Old Testament perhaps they would not have put Socrates, one of their own prophets to death.

Again this silly nonsense about "outliers" that reduces the mind to biology and genetics. At least have out with it man and admit that Naziism is a godless and materialistic ideology that denies the soul and freedom of will. If you believe in the soul then you cannot deny that we all make our own destiny. Epigenetics and neuroplasticity show that hereditary is far more complicated than was previously thought.

There was a time when an Athenian in the time of Solon might have looked at the Scythian philosopher Anacharsis and said, Ancient Athenian in the time of Solon: "That Scythian philosopher Anacharsis with all his inventions and wisdom--just a statistical outlier! He doesn't prove that those fair-haired, white-skinned barbarians can ever be capable of civilization!" How will you account for the fact that civilizations are so constantly rising and falling in history on the materialistic genetic hypothesis of intelligence? That ancient Greece produced an astonishing number of geniuses in comparison with the size of its population, unparalleled in the history of humankind, and yet degenerated into a mere subject people under the Ottoman heel? The answer is that they degenerated just like every other civilization by their moral vices and tore themselves apart as I have shown here. Not a single Jew involved in the process.

We don't truly know how they lived and why they did what they did since their culture was mostly abolished at the sword of the jewish ideology in question. Maybe the Germanic tribes held freedom of speech within their communities very highly as a cultural value.

As far as the other stuff, ok, I get it, you're only interested in talking out of your ass. These people aren't very different now than they ever were. No one could go into inner Africa until Speke in the mid-late 19th century. And you still can't now. And Egypt and India were also originally white civilizations. All the mummies they test are R1b and Indians still speak an Indo-European language. But I digress, fixing the many holes in your lack of knowledge isn't worth my time.

>Ancient Athenian in the time of Solon:

(P. S. Ignore this.)

They're both jewish, but more importantly non-European, obviously.

>No one could go into inner Africa until Speke in the mid-late 19th century

What exactly is your point here? That only strengthens my argument. I told you that many of the peoples in sub-Saharan African were reported to have had many noble qualities, you say they were had been untouched by outsiders when those qualities were discovered. Your talking about the race of the ancient Egyptians is also completely irrelevant.

this guy look like yid lol

And what is your point? You said Jewishness was about censoring free speech; I have shown you that there is nothing innately friendly to free speech in white people as such, that even among the Greeks and Romans tyranny had to be constantly fought against and that upon the whole the Old Testament is favourable to free speech, because it shows again and again prophets who speak the truth being condemned by society and put to death.

If you have still yet to learn that calling people "notsees" amid discussion makes you look like an utter fool trying to hide weak ass argumentation, I can only come to the conclusion that you're just a stupid person whose wall-of-text posts are not worth reading. Behave like an adult if you want to be taken seriously.

They were considered violent and backwards, as they are today. That's how blacks are and have always been. Not sure "noble" is the right word here.

Excellent. Good to see another admirer of Hazlitt.

You most definitely have not shown that. Freedom of speech is a value that has only ever existed in white societies. It is a fundamentally European concept, and as Europeans have lost power to jews that value has been eroded because jews are semites who do not care about free speech as an abstract concept.

Hold on. So are you going to disavow Naziism then? Was Hitler wrong in what he said? What exactly distinguishes your point of view from that of Hitler as far as the essence of our discussion goes? He chalked everything up to race just as you do, he blamed Jews for all the world's ills; the only differences are merely superficial ones.

I pointed out here that the Athenians put Socrates to death, I pointed out here the tyranny of men like Caligula and Nero and Draco and Phalaris in antiquity (and might have produced a hundred more) , I pointed out here that Europe languished under above 1,000 years of darkness until it was pulled out of it by the efforts of only a few great men , I pointed out here the despotism of absolute monarchy in France , here that of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and the Inquisition , I pointed out here here and here that the Old Testament is generally speaking favourable to freedom of speech, I pointed out here that a fervent early advocate for free speech, Spinoza, was a Jew , I pointed out that black men fought under Napoleon for free speech against white men ; how can you possibly continue to claim this?

I wouldn't disavow my neighbor's cat for an idiot like you. Jews have been a problem everywhere they've gone for millennia and have been kicked out of around 300 polities. And the desire to maintain racial integrity is biologically wired into us. That you automatically equate such things with a central European regime that lasted 12 years only makes you look like an ignoramus with regard to not only history, but reality itself.

Can you post a version of this that is for people and not ants?

Good for you, but none of those things do anything to prove that freedom of speech is not a European value. It has only existed in European nations because Europeans are more independent and individualistic than other groups and therefore value such a thing more than other groups. That's the root of it, being a people who cherish liberty. To say that virtue has been suppressed or challenged or even abolished over the course of many centuries is not proof otherwise; and the fact that it exists in western nations today and continues to be cherished and considered sacred by predominantly white men is what shows that it is a value unique to us.

The "Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race" business is a very modern phenomenon---you won't find a word about it until Houston Stewart Chamberlain's book of 1899 (which was Hitler's Bible). You don't even really hear about world-wide Jewish conspiracies altogether until the mid-19th century. Are you aware for example that the notion that Lord Rothschild "bought England after Waterloo" is a forgery invented for a political pamphlet first written in 1847? It is called the "Rothschild Libel."

independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-rothschild-libel-why-has-it-taken-200-years-for-an-anti-semitic-slur-that-emerged-from-the-10216101.html

The objections people raised to Jews in the past were chiefly on religious grounds. Why was William Prynne against the readmission of the Jews into Britain, for example? Not because he feared some sort of conspiracy or plot to impose degeneracy and financial servitude on the people but because "it was a very ill time to bring in the Jews, when the people were so dangerously and generally bent to apostasy, and all sorts of novelties and errors in religion."

The Hitler regime was the only one in history that blamed Jews for all the world's woes. None of even the other Fascist leaders did. Mosley did not and Mussolini only persecuted Jews under pressure from Hitler. So when you blame Jews for everything going wrong in the world where am I to suppose that you got it from? If you do think that Jews are responsible for everything bad in the world then why should you not sympathize with Hitler? You at least have to admit that he and the Nazi Regime are your clearest intellectual predecessors.

Are you jewish? If not, this must be your first day on Veeky Forums if you feel this comfortable regurgitating jewish propaganda like that on here.

It is a value which has been held by certain European peoples at certain times, sometimes by only an extreme minority of thinkers. The peoples of the continent have never cherished freedom of speech like the people of Britain, hence why for example they have Holocaust Denial laws. And yet Britain with all its history of cherishing free speech is now throwing it away with this hate-speech nonsense. So there is nothing innately in the white man that predisposes him to free speech. Conversely I could show you hundreds of coloured and Jewish intellectuals who advocated for free speech. All this runs clean contrary to the genetic hypothesis of mind which supposes that people and races simply "are" what they are. No; they choose to be what they will be.

I have been on Veeky Forums since 2007, /pol/ since the beginning, browsed Stormfront when I was 12 years old. I know every single point of view you hold like the back of my hand. Arguments and facts which I have collected by my own reading and which represent my simple point of view are not "propaganda." On the other hand I have not observed a single original thought to come from you so far. Who is the propagandized one? Can you refute a single fact which I just presented to you?

Who do you think has been behind the push for holocaust denial and hate speech laws in England and France and elsewhere? This gets back to one of my initial points about how jewish interests do not care about such things and are as a result the main people trying to abolish or skirt free speech principles in our societies. We're talking about an abstract concept here, too. Keep that in mind--non-European people's feelings on it are not always based in principle, but self-interest. Jews were some of the main people promoting the expansion of free speech and breaking down anti-pornography laws in the US in the 60s but were doing so as a means to obtain power and attack the wasp elite. And the wasp elite caved because they were more rooted in principle than self-interest. Now that jews have power they are the main people trying to suppress free speech or go around it using hate speech provisions. You have to look at how the group mean/average behaves and views such things, free speech or anything else; this is why you presenting outliers to me caused a mere shrug. It doesn't matter, and if you are using such examples to shape your basis of understanding you are missing the bigger picture.