Comments for seangabb.co.uk
Yes, that's a good point.
I didn't think about you being interrupted. Come to think of it, I think I read you were cut off once on the BBC in mid-flow? I had forgotten that.
Good article, anyway.
BBC: "We don't want to get too personal here..." we're attacking David Irving and Nick Griffin after all.
LOL. Ahh the puerile world-view of the BBC. That's what you get for employing women.
Mr Bryant is a typical member of this class. At Oxford, he was a member of the Conservative Association. He next took holy orders in the Church of England, becoming first a curate and then a youth chaplain. After this, he joined the Labour Party and got a job at the BBC.
That's it in a nutshell. From one protected pulpit to another. All I can say is that the Tories are little different. People have no real moral sense anymore, and fools like Bryant are no exception. Fundamentally they are moral narcissists and view themselves as moral exemplars regardless of what they do. So your argument-to-principle just bounced straight off. How can Bryant be wrong, thinks Bryant? Bryant, like most of his ilk, has a Pope complex. I suppose that's how the Reformation ought to end.
I've said it before here and I'll say it again, libertarianism is a paving ideology for Marxism. And, it's a grave error in circular logic to assume that others place secular ideology in the same importance as libertoons. Muslims are present in Labour and Tory but only someone very naive would believe that that allegiance to something as paltry and unimportant as a political party supercedes their allegiance to Islam. The same goes for other groups. Libertoons may be stuck in the rotting gestalt of the Enlightenment, but don't assume others are.
...You're right in your methodology of attack, IMO, but the problem with the "swinish multitude", to borrow Burke's apposite phrase, is that they are too fecking thick to understand *why* they should have freedom of speech. You have to make it very apparent. I would also have gone on the offensive when Fool Bryant said stupidly that we have freedom of speech in this country, but I would have said that we should have a full and frank discussion *right now* of racial differences - and watch as the BBC shut the discussion down.
The disgusting herd is too vulgar and stupid to understand something as abstract as *principle*, they must see the concrete. Not that I am in favour of "freedom of speech", I am very much opposed to it; but it's only the sacred that needs protecting from evil not the profane. Racial differences and racial politics should be open to discussion.
Nice to see you in action again, btw, Dr Gabb. Even though I disagree with your views, you are still a ray of light. Libertarianism, I will remind others, was always a negative, always a dissolving force. In the 18th and 19th centuries its objective was the dissolution of the medieval world of faith, but it can still serve a useful function dissolving the modern, sick, inverted variant. Keep chipping away, you never know what might fall off.
"Are you sure you didn't have enough time to keep it on topic, though? Didn't you just want to insult him and then gloat about it on your blog? There's nothing wrong with that, of course, although I think it's a shame the subtle libertarian points on free speech in an unfree society in your article had to go unmade on the radio to make time for it."
When you do this sort of media, you need to keep your message very clear and simple. You may be stopped at any moment.
I like the recording.
He does literally splutter at one point.
Are you sure you didn't have enough time to keep it on topic, though? Didn't you just want to insult him and then gloat about it on your blog? There's nothing wrong with that, of course, although I think it's a shame the subtle libertarian points on free speech in an unfree society in your article had to go unmade on the radio to make time for it.
I find your claim that Jews are not white at least amusing. But I will not enter into debate over it.
They have white northern European genes, but are racially distinct in important ways -- their genetic advantage in IQ, for example -- and are antagonistic towards w.n.e.'s.
As for your Latin, I didn't wish before now...
"But you've invited Nemesis."
...to draw attention to the fact that "associatio" is a backward projection: a better word would be "sodalitas". As for "libra", that means a set of scales. The nominative feminine of the adjective "liber" is "libera". I also suggest that "esto" or even "sit" would be better for your purpose than "fiat". You appear to be adapting a well-known legal maxim without much feeling for the wider language.
I certainly don't have, but adaptation was the point: changing the verb too would have made it less recognizable from the original phrase.
You should not try making up phrases in languages that you do not understand. It will bring you into disrepute.
I wouldn't dare try make up a phrase: adapting one was risky enough.
I find your claim that Jews are not white at least amusing. But I will not enter into debate over it.
As for your Latin, I didn't wish before now to draw attention to the fact that "associatio" is a backward projection: a better word would be "sodalitas". As for "libra", that means a set of scales. The nominative feminine of the adjective "liber" is "libera". I also suggest that "esto" or even "sit" would be better for your purpose than "fiat". You appear to be adapting a well-known legal maxim without much feeling for the wider language.
You should not try making up phrases in languages that you do not understand. It will bring you into disrepute.
Dr Gabb:
There are Jews all over the political spectrum.
Yes, but they're not evenly distributed over that spectrum. All races are highly diverse, but they cluster at different parts of the spectrum. That's why the freest societies have been created by whites and why, as those white societies fall increasingly under Jewish and other non-white influence, their freedoms are vanishing.
Ascribing political opinions on the basis of ethnic origin is unproductive.
I don't ascribe political opinions on that basis: I ascribe average effects on that basis. The average effect of Jews is markedly against free speech.
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating - if you accuse the mainstream Jewish groups of being against freedom of speech, you are obviously right.
Then my case is proven: the presence of Jews in a white society is bad for free speech, because the mainstream groups are the ones that have the power and influence and would not exist without the "community".
If you accuse Jews AS JEWS of being against freedom of speech,
I don't do so. Nor do I accuse blacks, as blacks, of being criminals. Nevertheless, the presence of Jews and blacks in a white society has an marked effect against freedom of speech and for crime. I freely admit that some whites oppose free speech and some Jews support it, and that some whites are highly criminal and some blacks entirely law-abiding. This does not alter the average effects of these three groups.
...you must deal with the very large number of Jews who have been in favour of freedom of speech. The first complaint does not require any explanation based on genetic predisposition. The second excludes it.
Whether or not genetic predisposition is at work in this particular case, I don't think you understand genetics or statistics. Men, on average, are taller than women and there are fewer and fewer women as height increases. The existence of female giants does not exclude a genetic explanation for these facts.
Luke O'Farrell wrote: "Fiat associatio libra, coelum ruat"
Let there be free association, though the heavens fall.
I agree there is no reason here for Latin.
There is when the non-vibrant anti-Semitic community is constantly stigmatized as ill-educated.
Andrew Roocroft:
It seems to me perfectly reasonable that Jewish groups should seek to protest and boycott an event at which a dilettante historian, without any serious academic credentials, speaks with supposed authority on the holocaust. Similarly, Muslim groups and far-left groups boycott and protest against the leader of a national socialist party.
Thanks for supporting my argument: I entirely agree that the Jewish -- and Muslim -- assault on free speech is, from their point of view, perfectly reasonable. This is why their presence in the UK is bad for free speech. N.B. Your own grasp of history seems weak: Jewish groups and others weren't simply "protesting and boycotting", they were trying to stop Irving and Griffin speaking at all.
That some individual Jews seek to restrict the rights of other people is no grounds for asserting that there is a dichotomy between "a society run by Jews" and "a society with free speech."
But they're not acting as "individual Jews": they're acting in organized groups in defence of collective Jewish interests. Jews are, on average, much more collectivist and ethnocentric than whites -- Jewish libertarians were motivated, in part, by "What's good for Jews."
I agree with Murray Rothbard on that point - but certainly not because he's Murray Rothbard. I wasn't quoting Rand, again, as an authority, but merely as indicative of libertarian thought - that all forms of collectivism are nonsense.
So you agree with Rothbard that Rand ran a highly collectivist cult that did not allow freedom of speech or thought, but you still take her seriously when she claims collectivism is nonsense.
The United Kingdom certainly should consist entirely of private property, and thus what you describe as 'immigration' is merely the invitation by somebody who owns property in the British Isles to somebody who lives outside the British isles onto their property.
So because it "should" be the case, it's okay for what I describe as "immigration" to take place now, when it isn't the case? And you'll have to explain a) how it would be possible to confine immigrants and their effects to the private property of those who have invited them here; b) how long the invitation is valid. When the private property passes to someone else, can the invitation be rescinded and the immigrants sent on their way?
Of course not; I merely pointed out that it was "odd" for any libertarian to make the kind of classifications based on race to which your post inferred you subscribe.
Your ideology tells you race doesn't matter; my knowledge of science and history tells me does. It doesn't explain everything, but it's still highly significant. Ideology should adapt itself to reality, because reality isn't going to adapt itself to ideology.
Your collective blame imposed upon the Jewish race for "how hard Jews have worked to deny that they exist or have any importance" is not indicative of an individualist mindset,
No, no: I don't impose "collective blame" on anyone: I talk about average effects. The average effect of the Jewish presence is markedly against free speech.
I can't address everything else in detail, but in reply to talk about the "arbitrary" nature of race, the joys of individualism, the evils of collectivism, etc:
Rhodesia and South Africa were run by white collectivists who systematically discriminated against non-whites on the basis of race. Jewish individuals were highly prominent in the campaigns to rescue non-whites from those evil collectivist systems -- and certainly I wouldn't say they were ideal in every respect. Rhodesia-as-was now proves how well individualism and race-blindness have served those oppressed non-whites, and South Africa isn't far behind. It's not wise to suppose that words and ideology rule the world, and again I recommend John Derbyshire:
Lindsey is surely right that both liberals and libertarians “generally support a more open immigration policy.” The difference is that liberals are, from their standpoint, correct to do so, while libertarians are, from their standpoint, nuts to do so. Let me explain.
http://
article.nationalreview.co...GE2NTk1Mzc1Yzk=
There are Jews all over the political spectrum. Ascribing political opinions on the basis of ethnic origin is unproductive.
"Lord Levy and Ronald Cohen have directed Jewish earnings from the free market into New Labour's coffers for some time now, but don't seem to object at all to New Labour's enthusiasm for hate laws."
"Jewish earnings"!
Their Jewishness is irrelevant. And their contributions to the Labour Party are certainly opposed by plenty of people who happen to be Jewish.
"Why is Irving's and Griffin's appearance at the Oxford Union opposed by both the Jewish and the Muslim societies?"
Similarly, some Jewish societies oppose freedom of speech. But they do not speak for all Jews. If I was Jewish, they certainly wouldn't speak for me, and I would speak up against them.
If I was Jewish, I probably wouldn't mention it to anyone, on the grounds that it's an arbitrary label inherited from one's parents, for whom it is also an arbitrary label:
Wittgenstein's Poker, David Edmonds and John Eidinow, page 107
'What of Popper's own relationship with his Jewish forebears? In his application to the Academic Assistance Council in England for help in leaving Austria in 1936, he described himself as "Protestant, namely evangelical but of Jewish origin." Against the question whether he was willing to have religious communities approached on his behalf, he wrote opposite the Jewish Orthodox section "NO," very firmly. To make his position even more clear, he underlined the word twice.
But being Jewish has been rightly described as belonging to a club from which there is no resignation...'
Once again, if a Jew opposes freedom of speech, their Jewishness is probably irrelevant. And they may well be opposed by plenty of other Jews.
Luke O'Farrell wrote: "Fiat associatio libra, coelum ruat"
Let there be free association, though the heavens fall.
I agree there is no reason here for Latin.
Luke O'Farrell;
I believe Dr Gabb has dealt with your first point, and exposed your profound dichotomy - "You can have a nation with free speech or you can have a nation run by Jews" - as without substance.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable that Jewish groups should seek to protest and boycott an event at which a dilettante historian, without any serious academic credentials, speaks with supposed authority on the holocaust. Similarly, Muslim groups and far-left groups boycott and protest against the leader of a national socialist party.
Evelyn Waugh pointed out that one of the great advantages of the Left Wing Book Club, from its subscribers' point of view, was that it ensured one's peace of mind would never be disturbed by a heterodox opinion. Do you want Dr Gabb's commentators to adopt a similar policy?
Of course not; I merely pointed out that it was "odd" for any libertarian to make the kind of classifications based on race to which your post inferred you subscribe. Your collective blame imposed upon the Jewish race for "how hard Jews have worked to deny that they exist or have any importance" is not indicative of an individualist mindset, in that it proposes to classify, in the same way Marxists might refer to the bourgeoisie, Muslims the infidels or Jews the gentiles, people according to some supposedly common principle. There is nothing, so far as I am aware, in the Torah nor any other Jewish religious text which calls for the prohibition of the speech of the gentiles through violent force (except, of course, for appeals for divine intervention). So there is nothing 'Jewish' about opposing free speech. That some individual Jews seek to restrict the rights of other people is no grounds for asserting that there is a dichotomy between "a society run by Jews" and "a society with free speech."
I talk about free speech; you talk about the free market. Lord Levy and Ronald Cohen have directed Jewish earnings from the free market into New Labour's coffers for some time now, but don't seem to object at all to New Labour's enthusiasm for hate laws.
It's all part of one coherent theory of libertarianism. You're right, that in the poular mindset, we discriminate issues into 'social' or 'economic' or environmental,' and, in response to this popular classification, I sought to illustrate the abundance of Jewish contributors to the ideals of libertarianism in all fields, though I personally believe that all libertarian ideas come from the same 2 principles - self ownership and (consequentially) private property. I have just returned, incidentally, from the debate at the Union at which Nick Griffin spoke, and made precisely that point in response to the student debaters arguing against free speech; in brief, she argued that principles like the right to life and bodily autonomy were more important than free speech - I intervened and pointed out that free speech was, being derived from self-ownership, nothing more than the autonomous exercise of the vocal chords whilst standing on private property.
But I do admit that Rand had some expertise in crudely primitive forms of collectivism, if what Murray Rothbard has to say about her is correct...
I agree with Murray Rothbard on that point - but certainly not because he's Murray Rothbard. I wasn't quoting Rand, again, as an authority, but merely as indicative of libertarian thought - that all forms of collectivism are nonsense. And the ad hominem attack on Rand doesn't weaken the fact that her argument is correct - racism is a crudely primitive form of collectivism.
It might interest you, however, since you have mentioned Rothbard, to read this, an article by Ludwig von Mises. In it, he notes on this specific topic of anti-Semitism;
"The truth is that while the Jews are the objects of anti‑Semitism, their conduct and qualities did not play a decisive role in inciting and spreading its modern version. That they form everywhere a minority which can be legally defined in a precise way makes it tempting, in an age of interventionism, to discriminate against them. Jews have, of course, contributed to the rise of modern civilization; but this civilization is neither completely nor predominantly their achievement. Peace and freedom, democracy and justice, reason and thought are not specifically Jewish."
His arguments are compelling - read the whole thing.
I hadn't realized the United Kingdom consisted entirely of private property. And how long does the "voluntary contract" of immigration last? Is it binding in perpetuity?
The United Kingdom certainly should consist entirely of private property, and thus what you describe as 'immigration' is merely the invitation by somebody who owns property in the British Isles to somebody who lives outside the British isles onto their property.
""Mass immigration" is just more than one of these voluntary contracts,"
You're really consider it's "just one more" voluntary contract? The permanent alteration of entire nations, against the wishes of the majority? The settling in the West of huge numbers of people hostile to Western values (let alone libertarian ones)? Just "one more" voluntary contract?
Actually, you misquoted me; "just more than one," not "just one more." And I believe exactly that. That in the same way that free trade is just many indivdual voluntary contracts, not some capitalist conspiracy to keep African people poor, that unrestricted access to private property in the UK to people outside the UK (ie, open borders) merely permits people to consent to as many of these contracts as they can find partners to.
The second point, which you conflate, is that of democracy - "against the wishes of the majority." The majority have no justification whatsoever in determining how I use my personal property - it's called individualism. I oppose, and in this sense depart from libertarians like Hayek, the rule of the majority, since it abolishes any notion of justly acquired exclusive property.
And it seems to me that 'Western values' have as a central tenet freedom of association. You don't think I should be allowed, for instance, to associate freely with people outside the UK on my private property within the British Isles. I abhor the principle of nationalism to which I infer you subscribe (please correct me if I'm wrong) - namely that "the permanent alteration of entire nations, against the wishes of the majority" ought to be prohibited by governmental coercion on entrance to private property by foreigners, just as I abhor the principles of socialism or Wahhabism. Again from Mises' essay, "the parties of the Left and of the Right are in conflict because they both aim at supreme power." Nevertheless, I don't deny socialists their unalienable right to acquire property, to assemble, and to exercise their self ownership to propagate anti-Western doctrines. The 'Western' liberal principles which we seek to defend are based entirely upon the freedom to associate and the freedom to exercise self ownership.
Fiat associatio libra, coelum ruat. And how odd that there was more freedom of association -- and freedom of speech -- in the UK and US before mass immigration and civil rights.
I think we probably agree that all civil rights legislation which prohibits private individuals from discriminating based on race should be repealed entirely. This has nothing to do with 'mass immigration,' which started about 400 years earlier and continued in a torrent until the 1920s, and certainly nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, which, as I pointed out, has produced many exceptional models of libertarianism and free marketeers.
I must apologise that I am unable to translate your Latin quotation, and cannot find it by searching. Though I note that your argument, whatever it is, carries no more authority being written in Latin than it does in English. I should be grateful if you might translate so that I can understand clearly your profound argument. Without sounding too sycophantic, I am reminded of Dr Gabb's criticism of a conservative pamphlet some time ago, in which its author resorted to German and awkard Latin derivations to confound his reader as to to the truth of his doctrine. Dr Gabb's rebuttal:
"There are many subjects, I grant, discussion of which requires a specialised language. There is music. There is the law. There are the natural sciences. But this is so only for the most elaborate discussions. For basic presentations, plain English has always been found sufficient. And it is not so for discussing political philosophy. For this, plain English is ideally suited."
I look forward to a plain English reply.
Luke O'Farrell said: "I'm disappointed to see you adopting liberal tactics. You accuse me of "hatred" and tell me how Jewish libertarianism is, but completely fail to address my points about the Jewish assault on free speech. For example, which Jewish organizations oppose, let alone match, the campaigns of the ADL in the US and the CST in the UK? Why is Irving's and Griffin's appearance at the Oxford Union opposed by both the Jewish and the Muslim societies?"
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating - if you accuse the mainstream Jewish groups of being against freedom of speech, you are obviously right. If you accuse Jews AS JEWS of being against freedom of speech, you must deal with the very large number of Jews who have been in favour of freedom of speech. The first complaint does not require any explanation based on genetic predisposition. The second excludes it.
Dear Dr Gabb and Mr Roocroft,
I'm disappointed to see you adopting liberal tactics. You accuse me of "hatred" and tell me how Jewish libertarianism is, but completely fail to address my points about the Jewish assault on free speech. For example, which Jewish organizations oppose, let alone match, the campaigns of the ADL in the US and the CST in the UK? Why is Irving's and Griffin's appearance at the Oxford Union opposed by both the Jewish and the Muslim societies?
It's odd that a commentator on Dr Gabb's website should have such antipathy towards Jews: after all, Dr Gabb is the director of the Libertarian Alliance, which counts amongst its contributors Murray Rothbard, and falls in the same tradition as such eminent libertarians as Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Walter Block and Israel Kirzner - all ethnically Jewish.
Evelyn Waugh pointed out that one of the great advantages of the Left Wing Book Club, from its subscribers' point of view, was that it ensured one's peace of mind would never be disturbed by a heterodox opinion. Do you want Dr Gabb's commentators to adopt a similar policy?
Who better typifies the free market capitalist than the entrepreneurial Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his family's multinational banking empire?
I talk about free speech; you talk about the free market. Lord Levy and Ronald Cohen have directed Jewish earnings from the free market into New Labour's coffers for some time now, but don't seem to object at all to New Labour's enthusiasm for hate laws.
More to the point, it's surprising that any visitor to this site have an inclination to define people in terms of their ethnicity, provenance or economic status. Ayn Rand quite aptly rebuts this nonsense as "the most crudely primitve form of collectivism."
And you're naïve and ignorant enough to swallow her line. If you know anything about the scientific study of racial differences -- which I very much doubt -- you'll know how hard Jews have worked to deny that they exist or have any importance. Now, can you think of why it might be in their ethnic interests to push this line? If you can, can you extend your reasoning to other dogmas of libertarianism?
But I do admit that Rand had some expertise in crudely primitive forms of collectivism, if what Murray Rothbard has to say about her is correct:
Just as Communists are often instructed not to read anti-Communist literature, the Rand cult went further to disseminate what was virtually an Index of Permitted Books. Since most neophyte Randians were both young and relatively ignorant, a careful channeling of their reading insured that they would remain ignorant of non- or anti-Randian ideas or arguments permanently (except as they were taken up briefly, brusquely, and in a highly distorted and hectoring fashion in Randian publications).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
rothb...rothbard23.html
Added to which, I believe that most libertarians are in favour of immigration on the grounds that private property owners have the right to invite whomever they like onto their property, to perform whatever service is voluntarily consented to.
I hadn't realized the United Kingdom consisted entirely of private property. And how long does the "voluntary contract" of immigration last? Is it binding in perpetuity?
"Mass immigration" is just more than one of these voluntary contracts,
You're really consider it's "just one more" voluntary contract? The permanent alteration of entire nations, against the wishes of the majority? The settling in the West of huge numbers of people hostile to Western values (let alone libertarian ones)? Just "one more" voluntary contract?
...and any attempt to regulate and impose barriers is indicative not of a desire to protect Western values, but the fundamental repudiation of the principles of freedom of association.
Fiat associatio libra, coelum ruat. And how odd that there was more freedom of association -- and freedom of speech -- in the UK and US before mass immigration and civil rights. You might benefit from reading the following by John Derbyshire, though I doubt it will change your mind:
Lindsey is surely right that both liberals and libertarians “generally support a more open immigration policy.” The difference is that liberals are, from their standpoint, correct to do so, while libertarians are, from their standpoint, nuts to do so. Let me explain.
http://
article.nationalreview.co...GE2NTk1Mzc1Yzk=
Dear Andrew,
Many thanks for your response to Luke O'Farrell. We will defend his right to hate Jews, but are most unlikely to share his hatred. Modern libertarianism is almost as Jewish as Marxism.
Luke O'Farrell;
It's odd that a commentators on Dr Gabb's website should have such antipathy towards Jews: after all, Dr Gabb is the director of the Libertarian Alliance, which counts amongst its contributors Murray Rothbard, and falls in the same tradition as such eminent libertarians as Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Walter Block and Israel Kirzner - all ethnically Jewish. Who better typifies the free market capitalist than the entrepreneurial Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his family's multinational banking empire? More to the point, it's surprising that any visitor to this site have an inclination to define people in terms of their ethnicity, provenance or economic status. Ayn Rand quite aptly rebuts this nonsense as "the most crudely primitve form of collectivism." Added to which, I believe that most libertarians are in favour of immigration on the grounds that private property owners have the right to invite whomever they like onto their property, to perform whatever service is voluntarily consented to. "Mass immigration" is just more than one of these voluntary contracts, and any attempt to regulate and impose barriers is indicative not of a desire to protect Western values, but the fundamental repudiation of the principles of freedom of association.
Returning, however, to Dr Gabb's piece; the interview was quite excellent, especially the quip after his mention of Pinochet. I, fortunately, have a ticket to see David Irving and Nick Griffin on Monday at the Oxford Union, and am heartened by the decision of its members in a poll yesterday to vote almost 2-1 in favour of inviting these speakers. I believe it represents part of a wider backlash against the encroaching onto the private realm of supposedly 'public' concerns in the realm of free speech perpetrated by the generation who are the victims of Dr Gabb's biting criticism. The refusal to kowtow to special interests who seek to use the government to inflict proxy violence is mirrored internationally, with the invitation to Columbia University of President Ahmadinejad of Iran, and the near-homogenoeus online support for Jyllands-Posten during the cartoons controversy amongst impartial observers, and in Britain with the performance of plays like the Jerry Springer Opera and the production of Taking Liberties.
So long as the event is permitted by police to go ahead, a victory of substantial importance will have been won, delineating the private member's clubs from the public.
Well done Mr Gabb
A great many people are growing very sick indeed of all the political scum but especially of our NuLab friends who are the worst dross in 150 years or more
P Robson
Free speech is a concept created by white northern European males who were by modern standards horrendously anti-semitic, racist, sexist and homophobic. We are losing that free speech thanks largely to Jews and their dupes or collaborators, who attack it both directly through the legal system and indirectly through their support for mass immigration and minority rights (i.e. minority privileges). It's easy to find individual Jews who support the idea of free speech; it's impossible, as far as I am aware, to find any specifically Jewish organization that does so. The important and powerful ones certainly don't. A campaign is now under way to destroy the American First Amendment, led by the Anti-Defamation League:
Illegal abroad, hate Web sites thrive in U.S.
CHICAGO - It might come as a surprise to the soldiers who defeated fascism in World War II, but the United States has become a refuge for Nazism and other brands of extremism over the last decade.
On the Internet, that is.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/
ar...8hatesites.html
I think of a few things that might be more surprising to the soldiers than America's continued adherence to the Constitution: mass immigration by non-whites, for example. But the ADL are all in favour of that, so America's victory in WW2 won't be invoked against it. You can have a nation with free speech or you can have a nation run by Jews. You can't have both.
Commenting by HaloScan
