Sunday, March 14, 2010

Animal Farm in Atlanta

(Photo used for illustrative purposes only.)

[Civilized peace among people requires] that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do: as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.

[Peace among human beings also requires] that each man shall abstain ... from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.

So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace.... But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.

Lysander Spooner, Natural Law (1882)

A loud banging on the door pried Rob Rudnick from sleep's insistent embrace shortly before 7:00 the morning of March 10.

When he opened the door to the Carrollton, Georgia warehouse that serves as unofficial headquarters for Neal Horsley's gubernatorial campaign (and sleeping quarters for volunteers), "the first thing I saw was a SWAT shield and a bunch of machine guns pointing at me," Rudnick recalled to
Pro Libertate.

Within minutes, Rudnick, Horsley, and campaign volunteer Esther O'Toole were lying handcuffed, face-down on the floor with machine guns pointed at their backs. Although Rudnick and Mrs. O'Toole were released, Horsley was dragged off to jail. Before the end of the day, he and Esther O'Tool'e husband Jonathan (who was arrested in the late afternoon) would be behind bars, charged with making "terroristic threats" against the life of "Sir" Elton John.

Neither Horsley nor O'Toole has ever met Elton John, or displayed any interest in trying to make his acquaintance. Neither has said or written a syllable indicating an intention to harm him in any way, and they haven't the means to do so even if that were their desire.

The flamboyant, superannuated British pop singer is immensely wealthy and constantly surrounded by a phalanx of security personnel. The little-known Horsley is a pugnacious and controversial Christian activist and provocateur (which is not to say that he's an agent provocateur) of severely limited resources.

Despite all of this, Horsley and O'Toole were targeted for a daybreak paramilitary raid conducted by what the Atlanta Journal-Constitution called "members of the Atlanta police fugitive squad and U.S. Marshal's office." Rudnick expanded that description by telling Pro Libertate that he saw "a couple of guys wearing FBI SWAT gear" as well.

By day's end the two were charged with making a "terroristic threat" against John, as well as "criminal defamation" and using the Internet to communicate a death threat. As Rudnick said, "This was all about Neal's recent videos about Elton John."

Lochinvar he ain't: "Sir" Elton, whose title proves that, as is the case with Nobel Peace Prizes, they're just giving knighthoods away these days.

In a recent Parade magazine interview, "Sir Elton" was quoted describing Jesus of Nazareth as "a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man."

He subsequently amended that comment by claiming that this was how he chooses to see Jesus, and blaming Parade's editorial staff for engendering controversy by presenting his remarks poorly.

It's reasonable to surmise that John's meaning was understood by tens of millions of Christians who were offended by the characterization.

Few took greater offense than Horsley, who is preparing a stunt campaign for the Georgia Governor's office on a platform calling for Christians to secede from the United States. Horsley produced two videos for distribution via his YouTube channel.

The first video documented a protest Horsley and O'Toole conducted outside John's Atlanta condominium in which they held signs proclaiming "Elton John Must Die," the fine print of which was the reference "Hebrews 9:27": "... it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment."

Horsley and O'Toole did not intend to kill John, nor were they soliciting the services of someone else to accomplish that criminal deed, but rather a recognition of a biological reality from which John is not immune, coupled with a warning, rooted in biblical teachings, about a judgment to which he will be liable.

Horsley claims that his intention is "remind Elton John that he has to die" -- that's a statement of a biological reality, not a threat of incipient violence -- and that his desire is not see Elton John suffer, but rather to repent.



If Horsley, who appears quite sincere in his beliefs, were acting out of hatred toward Elton John, calling him to repentance wouldn't make much sense: After all, if he hated the singer and was convinced he was going to hell, wouldn't Horsley simply get out of his way?

That being said, this must be said as well:

Reasonable people -- including those who (like myself) are committed Christians -- can consider this to be tasteless and counter-productive. It takes a considerable gift for creative dishonesty coupled with something akin to clinical paranoia to treat it as a threat of any kind, however.

Reginald Dwight (aka Elton John), pre-knighthood and pre-Hair Club for Men (or its British equivalent).

The second video posted by Horsley (which has apparently been removed from YouTube) is unambiguously tasteless and offensive in an unqualified sense. It is a palimpsest of the hideous video record of Daniel Pearl's execution by a clique of Islamist terrorists.

In Horsley's rendering, the face of the murdered American reporter is altered with the insertion of Elton John-style star-shaped eyeglass lenses.

The caption points out that in the Islamic religion, Jesus of Nazareth -- while not worshiped as Lord and Savior -- is revered as a prophet second in stature to Mohammed. Indeed, it is common for devout Muslims to pronounce a ritual benediction ("peace be upon him") when making reference to Jesus, just as they do when mentioning Mohammed.

Horsley's point, which is made allusively, is that Muslim militants of the same kind who were so theatrically aggrieved by a Danish newspaper cartoon of Mohammed might well take offense over Elton John's characterization of Jesus Christ.

For the past several decades, Horsley has cultivated a reputation for high-profile, confrontational activism, much of it focused on abortion. He helped organize (but reportedly had no official position in) the group that created the "Nuremberg Files" website, which published information about abortionists and their associates "in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for their crimes against humanity."

A federal court ruled in 2002 that the information on that website constituted "true threats" against the abortionists profiled therein and awarded Planned Parenthood -- which is already choking on taxpayer subsidies -- a huge civil judgment.

Horsley's activism has led to many collisions with law enforcement officials both locally and across the country. His history with the police includes an early-1970s drug conviction that led to a prison term, during which he became familiar with Chuck Colson's prison ministry and converted to Christianity.

Although there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of his pro-life beliefs (which included, to his credit, opposition to the Vietnam War long before he became concerned about abortion), many of Horsley's would-be allies are put off by what could be seen as an appetite for publicity and a juvenile penchant for vulgarity. The latter trait is perhaps best illustrated by his bizarre intimation that prior to becoming a Christian he engaged in bestiality.

That Horsley is an irritant to the local police is obvious (and, taken in and of itself, could be considered admirable). Rudnick told me that a few days prior to the raid, "we got a call from the Carrollton police asking Neal to go downtown and talk with them about the Elton John videos. He wasn't willing to go, and when they got insistent he said, `Well, you'll just have to arrest me.'"

That conversation illustrates quite convincingly that Horsley -- despite being a certifiable annoyance -- was not a threat of any kind. (It's worth considering, as well, that if Horsley were actually involved in terrorism of any sort, his bail would most likely have been set higher than $40,000.) Defying an invitation to talk to the police is not a criminal offense, nor does one commit a crime by daring the police to arrest him.

Clearly, somebody -- most likely employed by the federal government, given the admitted involvement of the Marshals Service and the reported involvement of the FBI -- is trying to make a point, and probably to create a despotic precedent. (In light of the fact that the abortion lobby decreed that March 10 would be commemorated as the "Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers," perhaps a functionary connected to that lobby ordered Horsley's arrest that morning as a celebration of sorts; stranger and more whimsical things have happened.)

The other charges against Horsley are just as facially absurd as the terrorism-related count. If, as any honest person would recognize, Horsley's protest falls within the legal category of "innocuous speech," then he can't be prosecuted for transmitting that speech over the internet.

Invoking Georgia's little-used and best-repealed "Criminal defamation" statute is a classic use of a "cover charge" by police to justify slapping the handcuffs on someone they consider obnoxious but whose behavior cannot honestly be described as criminal.

The relevant portion of that statute (section 6-11-40) declares:
"A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace." (Emphases added.)

If Horsley's protest falls within that definition, Elton John's original statement should as well: His comments as published in Parade certainly have no basis in the extant records describing the individual known as Jesus of Nazareth -- whether one considers Him to be alive or dead, divine or merely a moral teacher.

Elton, who maintains his home in Atlanta with the man he calls his "husband," certainly knows enough to understand that characterizing Jesus as he did would inevitably "provoke a breach of the peace."

The provocation becomes even more acute in light of Elton's publicly expressed desire to abolish organized religion -- something that could only be accomplished through
terroristic means.

Just as Horsley could be accused of using his rhetoric to foment violence against Elton John, "Sir" Elton's remarks about banning religion could be seen as enjoining anti-Christian violence from people with the means to imprison, kill, and otherwise persecute people who espouse that faith.

This being the case, why isn't Elton John also being investigated under the criminal defamation statute? John is at least as plausible a threat to Horsley as Horsley is to John -- which is to say that neither poses any material threat to the other. Both of them said things that can be regarded as hateful and offensive, but neither committed an offense against the person or property of the other -- and that is the threshold consideration when determining if an actual crime has taken place.

Yet one of them was thrown face-down to the floor with a gun barrel at his neck and thrown in jail because the subject of his intemperate -- but constitutionally protected -- speech is wealthy, politically well-connected, and a member of a specially protected class.

Be sure to get your daily dose of sedition each weeknight from 6:00-7:00 Mountain Time on Pro Libertate Radio -- courtesy of the Liberty News Radio Network.

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

this case reminds me of rush advocating the murder of that one guy over the air, and then "copyrighting" his words as to prohibit prosecution.

but alas, he said this under a repugnican administration so nothing was gonna happen anyways.


jungleroar said...

i saw bugs bunny in a donald duck costume

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Mr. Grigg,

This essay, unusually for you, is a non-story. Surely there must be many more egregious abuses of power and excessive uses of force by the Leviathan state for you to report on than this one? Two jackasses going off at the mouth and one gets busted - so what? It happens all the time.

Horsley's intent with the doctored Daniel Pearl murder video you described is clear. It is disingenuous and cowardly for him to back away from his clear statement, the video montage combined with "Elton John must DIE," and then claim that he was only exercising artistic license and trying to convert Elton John to a sober Christianity. Bullshit. He should stand up like a man and stand by his incitement to murder Mr. "John." If he did not really mean that then he should not have said it in public. Some people take statements of intent literally. If Horsley does not know that by now, he needs to run for town dog-catcher instead of Governor.

But now that he is facing a jail term and his own probable jailhouse conversion to Elton John's system of beliefs and sexual practices, his verbal courage crumbles, his lower lip starts to quiver, and he backs off. Like I said, Jackass Number One.

Now for Jackass Number Two. Elton John may indeed have blasphemed, but I seem to recall the words of Jesus - correct me if I'm wrong - "Sin against Me can be forgiven, but sin against the Holy Ghost can never be forgiven." Elton John never advocated murder. That's why he is not in jail, not because he's obscenely rich, and foul-mouthed to boot.

And the fact that Elton John and his "husband" are protected in some jurisdictions from discrimination does not make them a "specially" protected class. In that case, one could argue that the law "specially" protects many other classes of people, from blacks to fat people to Mongoloids to cripples to Jews to Christians. And a damn good thing too, given how many yellow-bellied assholes (like Rush Limbaugh, as your first commenter pointed out) stand ready to incite OTHER people to violence against these "specially" protected classes of people.

Come on - tell us about the ICE Castles story I sent you some time ago. Tell us about the daily murders and taser tortures of innocents by police. Tell us about babies and Boy Scouts denied acces to planes. Tell us about the TSA forcing a mother to take off her crippled son's leg braces to walk through an airport scanner - which he could not do without the braces. Tell us about the TSA confiscating a man's Congressional Medal of Honor at the airport because they thought its points could be used as a weapon. Tell us about the monstrous corruption and theft by so-called "elected officials" and so-called "bankers."

Spare us from this tiny storm in a British teacup. Both these idiots deserve what's coming to them.

Lemuel Gulliver.

Whitey Lawful said...


Anonymous said...

If you want to play gatekeeper of the blog - then go and start your own damn blog. Will has a right to publish whatever story he wants and we have the choice whether or not to read it.

apollonian said...

"Lemuel," The Pharisee Merely Exposes, Compromises Himself
(Apollonian, 15 Mar 10)

"Lemuel": are u "jack-ass" no. 3?--it seems u completely miss pt. of Grigg's story and expo: Horsely was NOT advocating murder at all as Grigg makes clear.

It's a lot like shock-jock Hal Turner saying he thinks the Chicago judges who upheld gun-ban should be killed (see, "Second Mistrial...," 10 Mar 10)--I agree, they ought to be, and perhaps, surely, when we Christian soldiers take power, we'll put those scum on trial for TREASON and have them lawfully executed.

A further pt. is homosexuals--who are demonstrably psychotic (consisting of obsession for hedonistic sense gratification)--have been empowered egregiously and outrageously and they ARE ALLOWED and even encouraged to make same idiotic extrapolations as u do about Horsely, justifying and excusing the illegal exertion of police powers under color of law.

So what happened, obviously, is that corrupt political powers in Atlanta decided to make a sympathetic gesture to homosexuals by permitting this outrageous and illegal police action under color of law. Thus the police officers and public are encouraged to thinking they can and should carry out this extremely dangerous and illegal activity upon entirely specious justification--against the proper rights and security of the people.

It's the deliberate cultivation of fascism and its larger mentality--aggravated further by additional means of putting power into hands of psychotics like queers.

"Lemuel" writes: "Horsley's intent with the doctored Daniel Pearl murder video you described is clear."

And that's where u make a moronic ass of urself, "Lemuel," interjecting ur own brainless (and utterly false) understanding, thus merely indicting urself as "yellow-bellied" and "asshole," to use ur own characterizations, now applied most appropriately--against u urself, sucker. It sure is "clear" to a mental mis-fit like u, eh "Lemuel"?

Thus "Lemuel," u show urself as one of the very worst enemies of freedom and free speech and expression--what then is the actual problem within ur heavily affected mind, so-called? I submit ur main malady is Pharisaism-moralism--of exact similar sort as the homosexual psychotics who are now allowed to run riot politically and juridically.

And what's then the basis of this stinking Pharisaism on ur part, "Lemuel"?--it's INFERIORITY COMPLEX--u feel u have to "prove" what a "moral" person u are, like all disgusting, brainless, scummy Pharisees--of same sort who murdered Christ, I submit.

CONCLUSION: The proper rule is traditionally for USA, and should be, to let people say whatever they please. That way, when u go defending Jews, for example, we can use it as prima facie evidence for TREASON and then put u on trial for ur miserable life. If we find anything else out in way of comforting the enemy, then maybe, hopefully, we'll be able to get a jury of good, patriotic anti-semites (the only sort of proper citizens in Christian republic) to convict u. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

apollonian said...

Purpose, Substance Of Blogging: DIALECTIC, Above All, Rendering Best Analysis, Info
(Apollonian, 15 Mar 10)

"Anon" at 9:50 am: perhaps u miss the whole pt. to blogging--which is dialectic by which we produce improved, focused information and especially, analysis. We thus GAIN by the expression of honest opinion. "Lemuel" gave good grist for my own anti-Pharisaical "mill."

Thus Grigg merely flushed out a Pharisaic dude, our dear fellow correspondent, "Lemuel." Lemuel then flushed out a convicted anti-semite, like me.

CONCLUSION: And all this discussion/dialectic then goes for jolly-good analysis of things according to proper principles. Grigg is insidious, provocative blogger, sometimes, upon occasion. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

William N. Grigg said...

By way of underscoring why I consider this story significant, here's a comment I got via e-mail from a pro-life activist who knows Horsley well and -- while he shares his views -- doesn't particularly care for him:

"I am not an associate of Neal Horsley, I find him disagreeable and hard to work with. I sympathize with his recent arrest and that of Jonathan O’Toole....

Horsley explains in a You Tube video and to police investigators that he is not threatening Elton John but merely stating a fact that everyone dies and faces eternal judgment....

What is disturbing is the new wave of terrorist and hate crime legislation, and the chilling effect that it has on the 1st Amendment....

Horsley and O’Toole do not [insist] that Elton John be prosecuted for Blasphemy, the 1st Amendment protects Elton John’s speech. Elton John has the right to go to hell. Neil Horsley and Jonathan O’Toole should not be prosecuted for warning Elton John of the fires of hell.

I can see how this can translate into many other contexts: Might I be subject to prosecution under "criminal defamation" statutes for rhetorical assaults on criminals in positions of public trust and authority? Next time I suggest that a cop who beats a handcuffed woman ought to be pummeled by the victim's male kinfolk, will I find myself in the dock for inciting "hatred" against the miscreant?

I've long wondered whether Horsley, like Hal Turner, was a federally subsidized provocateur. I spoke with some people who spent a lot of time with him, often in deep conversation, and (despite some disagreements over the merits of his activism) they are in agreement that he's not a "plant."

His desire is to use his protests to "heighten the contradictions" on the assumption that by making things worse in the immediate term,he'll be making them better in the long run. If this is his objective, I think he's seriously miscalculated.

William N. Grigg said...

I don't mind being described as "insidious" -- but I earnestly ask that we not become mired in another morass of meta-commentary. Thanks.

jurassicpork said...

Wait a minute. Neal Horsely? Isn't he the guy who admitted to Alam Colmes about 4-5 years ago that he used to have sex with farm animals?

Oh, "Animal Farm." I get it now.

William N. Grigg said...

Yeah, there's more mule than Horse in Horsley, and, uh, vice-versa, I suppose.


Anonymous said...

I'm with anonymous @ 9:50am.

If Lemuel wants to start his own blog, do his own research, and publish his own findings, fine. Otherwise, stop acting as if you are the filter for this blog.

Anonymous said...

Will, while I'm not convinced by Horsley's claim of innocent intentions, I do share your concern about the kind of precedent set by charges like this.

Then I read comments from people claiming as their Christian and patriotic bonfides that "queers" are "psychotics" and that "defending Jews" is treason --someone who apparently envisions a theocratic utopia where all the good "Christian soldiers" like him get to execute anyone they don't like for "treason" (which seems to include any speech those like him consider to be "comforting" to any of their apparently many enemies).

I guess there's going to be a lot of killing going on if people who think like apollonian take power. While I can't say I like the current power structure, I can't say I want to see people like apollonian get to enact their mass murder fantasies either. In fact, I'm pretty sure the current reality is much better than the "patriotic Christian" alternative.

liberranter said...

Next time I suggest that a cop who beats a handcuffed woman ought to be pummeled by the victim's male kinfolk, will I find myself in the dock for inciting "hatred" against the miscreant?

More likely you would find yourself charged with "inciting violence against a peace [sic] officer", or with some specious "terrorism" charge.

William N. Grigg said...

Anonymous, I can't understand why any human being wants to have, or believes himself entitled to exercise, power over another for any reason. One facet of that perverse desire is an impulse to criminalize political disagreement -- to the point of making such disagreements a capital "offense." And this can be found among statists of all varieties.

Last week, Mother Jones magazine -- yes, that Mother Jones -- put out a piece accusing Oath Keepers of fomenting "treason" because they have promised not to obey certain kinds of orders that are facially unconstitutional (viz, disarming civilians, blockading cities, and so forth).

At the same time we hear the and read the execrable Cheney-aligned conservative movement accusing attorneys of "treason" because they dared to offer legal representation to people illegally detained at Gitmo.

A former federal prosecutor who writes for National Review, employing a Stalinist rhetorical trope, insists that it is "objectively" pro-terrorist to oppose torture, indefinite detention without trial, and military tribunals, and to defend the due process rights of suspected terrorists.

On top of all this we have the pleasant little cultural squabbles you describe -- conflicts that have been lovingly nurtured by cynical, opportunistic people for both pecuniary and political profit.

You're entirely correct: Unless the besetting plague of collectivist statism (of all varieties, including the one afflicting the "Religious Right") is forced into remission, there is going to "a lot of killing going on" in our near future. Think of Bosnia or Beirut on a continent-sized canvas, and you'll get the idea. Charming.

dixiedog said...

I knew all along that just the right commentary would begin to cull the true statists right out from the crowd. They simply cannot stand not to speak up when their beloved societal segment/sect is part of the controversy/issue in question.

They demonstrate by their words that they have no issues whatsoever with statism of any color when its used in some way to protect and uphold the state-concocted special rights of their societal segment and/or beat down its opposition. And, naturally, the favored segment is generally going to be very wealthy OR very poor and, by extension, a politically-connected segment.

Lastly, this article provides further confirmation that you, Will, are indeed an anti-statist ├╝ber alles in my mind regardless of what the subject matter in question may entail and/or to whom inevitable state persecution has been (or will be sooner or later) directed.

Nothing new to me as I've long made clear I loathe all statists and we should dispense totally with the meaningless media-sanctioned labels we're showered with consistently, ad nauseam.

Anyway, please keep up the poignant, incisive commentary, Will. I hope you also keep emanating that daily dose of "edifying" packets from your show on Liberty News Radio.

whitebuffalo said...

"Anonymous, I can't understand why any human being wants to have, or believes himself entitled to exercise, power over another for any reason." - Will Grigg

I couldn't agree more. Whether it's the Health Nazis (we will put a gun to your head, a.k.a. pass laws, and tell you what to eat) or the Safety Nazis (someone somewhere might get hurt!) or, my personal favorite, the oxymoronic Tolerance Nazis (thou shalt not think or express any thoughts other than politically correct Liberal dogmas, all in the name of "diversity and tolerance"), why do so many people want to tell others what to do?! From my personal experience and studies the majority of these people can't run their own lives yet are the first to want to dictate to everyone else (e.g. Karl Marx and his proponents or law and order types). Liberty - only some people have it in their souls while the rest who don't want to rip it out.

apollonian said...

"I guess there's going to be a lot of killing going on if people who think like apollonian take power. While I can't say I like the current power structure, I can't say I want to see people like apollonian get to enact their mass murder fantasies either. In fact, I'm pretty sure the current reality is much better than the "patriotic Christian" alternative." -"Anon," 4:00 PM

* * * * *

Grigg Must Re-Examine Attempted Following Of Two Masters: It's Either-Or, Christian Or Jew
(Apollonian, 16 Mar 10)

"Anon": u should simply face the grim facts of life--IT SUCKS, according to Greek TRAGEDY, the Christians following this philosophy of tragedy with their own observation of the "FALL" of humanity into sin, this all in accord w. preceding Greek understanding of HUBRIS wherein human imagines he's God w. a perfectly "free" will, capable of "good-evil," which then is inevitable trap and fall of civilization.

Thus we see right now, before our very eyes, traitorous US Gov., certainly the controlling power thereof, deliberately, palpably taking side of CRIMINALS against CITIZENS of the country (including especially white Christians), criminals headed by Jews, "central-bankers," and their close accomplices among gentiles, including especially homosexuals.

Large Criminal faction then is comprised of Jews, homosexuals, and illegal aliens, these assisted by such as "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see and for expo/ref.) hereticalists.

These criminals are relatively few, perhaps, but they're extremely powerful w. ability to COUNTERFEIT the money supply practically at will and extremely well-organized. Moreover, Criminals know they're up against relatively few well-informed opponents (the true Christians--hence anti-semites), the mass of humanity confused and befuddled by such as mass-corporate "Jews-media."

Sociologically, there is distinct hierarchy to this criminal faction, the illegal aliens and most of the JCs really being more dupes than too willing co-conspirators w. Jews, bankers, and queers. Queers also surely aren't too much of topmost section of criminals, but they're much more willing co-conspirators than mere dupes.

Note then these JCs, headed by such as Hagee, Robertson, and Graham, including also the Catholic hierarchy (distinct fm the people), are self-acknowledged "rightists," JCs explicitly adhering to the Israeli terror-state, modern-day Murder Incorporated.

"Right" (Israeli-oriented zionists, "neo-cons," and dual-loyalists, along w. JCs) and "Left" (CFR-Bilderberg behind United Nations [UN]) simply play a charade for the dupes and masses of goyim caught in the middle btwn Jews and real Christians.

[------------see below for part two to above entry---------A.]

apollonian said...

[--------here's part two to above entry-------------A.]

* * * * *

And "anon," u're just a Jew-friendly liar when u say I'm for "mass-murder," when fact is I simply advocate self-defense against Jew murderers, followers of the Talmud which is easily researched and verified for its advocacy of mass-murder of gentiles--see and

Grigg also grossly deludes himself when he pretends we Christian soldiers--real Christians, unlike Grigg who merely pretends--are "collectivists." For the issue with collectivism is simply one of relation. For all rationalists uphold primacy of individual freedom as ideal--which I've explained to Grigg, but which Grigg continually ignores.

War, by it's nature, then always eventuates a collectivistic enterprise, but it doesn't mean collectivism is topmost ideal--it's mere necessary condition.

And what is the "current reality"?--this is prime question/issue, indubitably. And demonstrable, verifiable fact is "current reality" consists of a CRIMINAL REGIME within US gov. (and other national gov.s too) attempting to consolidate world power by means of world dictatorship, the "New World Order" (NWO) under the UN, etc., as Grigg can tell us all about in some detail, connected as Grigg was w. such as JBS and The New American magazine.

Are queers psychotic or not?--this is mere matter of fact. Are Jews Talmudic psychopaths?--I've given u all necessary references.

The real problem for William Grigg is he wants to pretend he's "Christian"--at same time as defending the all-time foremost anti-Christs, the Jews, who gloat and celebrate the execution/murder of Christ in their Talmud. Grigg doesn't want to talk about this Talmud and its BLATANT anti-Christianity--this is Grigg's little problem.

So I'm not advocating "mass murder" at all; rather, I advocate SELF-DEFENSE against the mass-murderers, the NWO headed and led by Jews as is evident, obvious, and readily apparent, Jews the very powers behind the crux instruments of "central banking"--see and for expo/ref.

And TREASON is very much of the essence for things, Christians defenders of TRUTH according to Gosp. JOHN 14:6, against Lies and conspiracy always headed and organized by Jews, Jews the foremost collectivists of all time. Grigg wants to defend Jews who are against US Constitution and Christianity--again, this is Grigg's little problem.

CONCLUSION: So it's William Grigg and other like-minded pretended "Christians" (or "rationalists") who need to consider and examine their own consciences for their deluded attempt to follow TWO MASTERS. Christians are anti-semites (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13) necessarily; it's either-or, and there's no middle way. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

apollonian said...

"You're entirely correct: Unless the besetting plague of collectivist statism (of all varieties, including the one afflicting the "Religious Right") is forced into remission, there is going to "a lot of killing going on" in our near future. Think of Bosnia or Beirut on a continent-sized canvas, and you'll get the idea. Charming." -Grigg, 4:54 PM

* * * * *

Cultural Problem More Than Mere "Collectivism"--Has Rather To Do With Lies, Ethics, Etc.
(Apollonian, 16 Mar 10)

Grigg: my entire thesis HAS ALWAYS BEEN that present cultural struggle is essentially, precisely same as ORIGINAL Christian revolution of St. Constantine the Great, early 4th cent.

And what is exact nature of present cultural struggle?--it's btwn TRUTH and lies--thus, ultimately Christian vs. Jew. In strict philosophy then, again, it comes down to re-affirmation of basic Western tenet regarding OBJECTIVE (Aristotle) nature of reality, necessary criterion of truth--which then requires determinist thesis of absolute cause-effect, negating fallacy/delusion of perfectly "free" human will, etc., which however is sooooooo irresistable to hubristic humans of "prosperous," "successful" human civilization producing over-populated goyim subject to HUBRIS, pretending to "good-evil," hence perfectly "free" will, thus take-over by Jews, masters of lies (Gosp. JOHN 8:44), who then effectively cull the excess over-population by means of aforementioned and quoted, "a lot of killing going on...."

Remember then "a lot of killing going on..." is the one sure-fire way over-population problem is solved--this always initiated by bold criminals (filled w. "chutzpah" and narcissist self-confidence) trying to get in first-strike, criminality always dominated by Jews, most organized and collectivistic of liars and criminals--TALMUDISTS--see and for expo/ref. on sublimely satanic Talmud.

Oswald Spengler, in "Decline of the West," himself observed the CYCLIC pattern, the growth of the culture/civilization to "maturity," over-population, and HUBRIS (they go together), and the subsequent take-over of the now degenerate, hubristic culture by foremost criminals and liars, most organized and collectivist, Jews (this however, regarding Jews, Spengler himself DID NOT make explicit for his own theory), making use of their invincible COUNTERFEIT fraud of fractional-reserve money and banking, achieving TOTAL (bolshevik) power, leading then to Orwellian doublethink and SUBJECTIVIST inversion of culture, language, and thought, thus "perpetual war for perp. peace," this all inexorably working to de-populate the now grossly degenerate culture.

[----------see below for part two to above entry---------A.]

apollonian said...

[---------here's part two to above entry---------A.]

* * * * *

Thus we observe the sublime Darwinian function of Jews, foremost collectivists, liars, killers, and murderers, all in accord w. their Talmud, who so sublimely solve problem of "over-population" of hubristic gentiles.

The historical twist is, this time, Jews have actually infiltrated and indeed, entirely taken-over the "Christian" establishment churches--every single one of them without exception--to the extent it is preached Christ himself was a Jew, hence by definition a Talmudist.

Thus Jews have persuaded so many "Christians" and gentiles--including our own Grigg, as we see--they owe allegience to Jews, through Christ, thus the "rightist" "Christian" (but really just "Judeo-Christian"--hereticalist) attachment/obsession with, and loyalty to terror-state of Israel, TREASON to USA, true Christianity (anti-semitism, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13), Truth (hence otherwise traditional Western objectivity), and US Constitution, rule-of-law, etc.

And this horrific cultural inversion is done, for example, by means, among others, of most subtle and sublime fallacy of EQUIVOCATION, confusing meaning of words, "Jew" and "Judean." For Christ was Galilean of Judean descent who absolutely opposed and indeed absolutely CURSED the Jews, followers of Pharisees and Talmud, by definition again (ck any authority, Jew or Christian).

Thus the struggle is now simply INTERNAL to the Christian aesthetic, church, and people--what is Christianity?--the successful Christian soldier must have a cogent and substantial answer: Christianity is ANTI-SEMITIC, necessarily and absolutely, by nature, essence, and definition, affirmation of TRUTH over and against Jew (Talmudic) ideal of lies and lying, Jews making themselves God.

CONCLUSION: So Grigg is grossly mis-guided as he pretends basic problem is mere collectivism, which is simply a political mechanism by which to conduct warfare, for one thing. Obviously then, there's something prior to such political collectivism which works to placing collectivism as ideal OVER that of individual freedom--which then is, obviously, a false moralism-Pharisaism--which in turn is founded upon mysticism-subjectivism--against TRUTH (hence Christianity and objectivity), reason, and reality. So once again, we find Jews are necessary conspiratorial masterminds, as they're masters of lies (Gosp. JOHN 8:44). Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Lemuel Gulliver said...

Hello again Mr. Grigg,

Phew! I sure got them started, didn't I? This thread reads as if all the pit bulls at a dogfight convention got loose at once. All growling and frothing at the mouth and biting each other in the ass, tearing chunks of flesh and ripping off ears.

I take back my judgment of this topic as being irelevant - homosexuality and religion have clearly stirred up more passion than if you had written about babies being barbecued on a spit and eaten. Yes folks, sex and death - always good topics for boosting newspaper circulation.

It seems everybody has their own pet hatred and wants to go out with clubs and pitchforks and massacre whoever it is that they dislike. Everybody too has their favored classes, who in their estimation can do no wrong. There are too many of each in the commentaries above here to even bother to give examples.

I happen to agree with Apollonian to some degree, except that he (like everyone) lumps all of his pet hatred, Jews, into the Satanic Classes. Others lump all queers into the Satanic Classes. Others lump all police into the Satanic Classes. Most police lump all civilians into the Satanic Classes. Some Muslims lump all Christians into the Satanic Classes. Some Christians lump all Muslims into the Satanic Classes.

Everyone wants to put everyone else but themselves into little boxes, nail the lids shut, and set the boxes on fire. Never mind, folks, you too, whoever you are, are in some other fanatic's little box. Some day a righteous Muslim may take off your head with a kitchen knife, convinced that he is going to sit thereby in the laps of forty-two virgins in Paradise.

America has been judged by a huge majority of people in other parts of the world as the most violent and most dangerous country to world peace, more than even Iran and North Korea, and Americans have been judged as among the most violent people in the world. We shoot more of each other per capita each year than almost anyone else, except Afghanistan, Iraq, South Africa, Mexico, and Colombia. Great examples for us as a nation to live up to.

The rage and hatred and viciousness on this blog demonstrate why. Or perhaps, like Mr. Horsley, they don't really mean it, but are just engaging in street theater?

A funny thing: America is also the country which professes Christianity more than any other. The atheistic countris of Europe are far less violent and riven by hatreds. And the other countries which are also violent are those which profess Islam most strongly. And I submit that the real reason the IRA withered away in Ireland is because the Irish have lost their blind devotion to Catholicism.

Why is it that religious people are always the most violent? It has been documented that evangelical Christians in America support torture. Just remember, folks, you too may someday find yourself in seomeone else's hated class. Not to worry, after the knife cuts your carotid artery, you lose consciousness within about 5 seconds, and so you won't feel it cutting through your spine.

A pox on all your houses.
Lemuel Gulliver.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

"Everyone wants to put everyone else but themselves into little boxes, nail the lids shut, and set the boxes on fire. Never mind, folks, you too, whoever you are, are in some other fanatic's little box."

The root of the evil--and the dirty little secret--right there.

What we all ought not forget is that all this factional bickering amongst ourselves serves the state most handily. "Psst...hey, dude, if you really wanna stick it to those {insert objet d'scorn here}, I can help you out...just sign your life--er, name--on the dotted line."

The minute we look down on others as lesser beings than ourselves, we forfeit our moral authority and add another line to the famous Niemoller stanza. And once the point is ceded, it's just a matter of time; liberty is either for everyone, or it is for no one. History is not ambiguous on that point.

FWIW, I'm with dixiedog on the assessment of Mr. Grigg's position in the matter. This certainly struck me as an unusual article in his corpus, but I didn't detect any sort of deviation from principle.

On the contrary, coming to the "defense" of Neal Horsley, despite some clear ambivalences about the case in whole and in detail, it seems Mr. Grigg understands quite well that tossing his (admittedly weird) neighbor under the bus is a deal that he cannot stomach--and that speaks loudly. Liberty is not gained, after all, by defending only our friends from the obvious villains.

Sure, it's a difficult case and subject for some. (What in life, that is worthwhile, isn't?) But if we are to fully understand or even admit the depth of the problem before us, we must examine it warts and all.

Thanks, Mr. Grigg, for being willing to do that.

Kali Maya said...

I am not Christian, but I defend the rights of all to speak their minds. I also think it is a great idea that Christians succeed, as I have long been a proponent of succession in general. The fact is that you cannot expect opposing belief systems to function optimally when in perpetual opposition to other groups. People have a right to live their lives as they choose, and we shouldn't be forced into a melting pot scenario.

Anonymous said...

The key question is? Is Elton J wearing diapers or is that just part of the duck costume?