Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Candid Address to Jews on the Jewish Problem – Episode 84


 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
6 Comments  comments 

6 Responses

  1. Common biological terms for the various types of relationships between two organisms:

    mutualism: both benefit
    commensalism: one benefits, the other is unharmed
    parasitism: one benefits, the other is harmed

    Optimal virulence seems relevant to Hadding’s point:

    One definition of virulence is the host’s parasite-induced loss of fitness. The parasite’s fitness is determined by its success in transmitting offsprings to other hosts. At one time, the consensus was that over time, virulence moderated and parasitic relationships evolved toward symbiosis. This view has been challenged. A pathogen that is too restrained will lose out in competition to a more aggressive strain that diverts more host resources to its own reproduction. However, the host, being the parasite’s resource and habitat in a way, suffers from this higher virulence. This might induce faster host death, and act against the parasite’s fitness by reducing probability to encounter another host (killing the host too fast to allow for transmission). Thus, there is a natural force providing pressure on the parasite to “self-limit” virulence. The idea is, then, that there exists an equilibrium point of virulence, where parasite’s fitness is highest.

    In the US, for example, the previously established and more restrained sephardic strain of parasite has lost out in competition to the more recently arrived and aggressive Eastern European ashkenazi strain. Such competition corresponds, by the way, to the point MacDonald has often made that throughout jewish history the more extreme and radical factions tend toward predominance, e.g. Jewish Activismt-Vol 3 No 3.

  2. This is relevant to Hadding’s point, yes. But it doesn’t support Hadding’s point. There may be an “equilibrium point of virulence” theoretically, but the Jews don’t abide by it. Just look at Israel … and Wall Street.

  3. My point is that the only end that is in the interest of Whites is an end to jewish parasitism, not an equilibrium which normalizes and perpetuates the harm jews cause Whites.

  4. Tan – yes, agreed.

  5. John Rees

    On Wikipedia:

    …”According to Pool and Pool (1978),[72] Ford’s retraction and apology (which were written by others) were not even truly signed by him (rather, his signature was forged by Harry Bennett), and Ford never privately recanted his anti-Semitic views, stating in 1940, ” I hope to republish The International Jew again some time.”


    “Robert Lacey wrote in Ford: The Men and the Machines that a close Willow Run associate of Ford reported that when he was shown newsreel footage of the Nazi concentration camps, he “was confronted with the atrocities which finally and unanswerable laid bare the bestiality of the prejudice to which he contributed, he collapsed with a stroke — his last and most serious.”[76] Ford had suffered previous stokes and his final cerebral hemorrhage occurred in 1947 at age 83.”

    But did he really “contributed to the bestiality of the prejudice?” It don’t seems to me at all that he gave rise to hatred. What do you think of this? Besides that, it seems contradictory, or was he forced to do this, confronted with the situation in 1945 as shown by the allies?


  6. Good things to bring up, John. We’ll have to cover this in the last program. I’ll do as much research as I can, but I don’t expect to find that Ford really believed the Holocaust propaganda; he was too Jew-wise. Maybe his “associate” was trying to improve Ford’s reputation for the historical record? Maybe his “associate” was Jewish? We’ll see.

    And, as you say, “The International Jew” articles were very careful not to be “antisemitic” and only described behavior that could be demonstrated, were evident for all to see, and almost always used Jewish sources for it!!

© the White network