ShareThis

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Yet More Jewish Supremacist Hypocrisy



Homosexual Jews have "higher souls" than gentiles, gay or straight, the deputy minister for religious services told the Israeli daily Maariv in an article published on Friday.

Even so, he would oppose any same-sex marriage bill, just as he would oppose marriage between a Jew and a gentile, said Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, a member of the right-wing Habayit Hayehudi party.

Same-sex marriage is "unnatural," the rabbi politician added, saying that "it is natural that the world wants continuity through relations between a man and a woman."

Ben Dahan, who was absent from the Knesset vote, said he does not want to persecute gays, but that his opposition for the bill stems from his commitment to Israel's Jewish nature.

"I have to keep the state Jewish. Things to contradict the values, culture or tradition will not receive a stamp of approval," he said.

****

The hypocrisy knows no limits were Jewish Supremacists are concerned, what do you think would happen if a white European member of government said that European people have 'higher souls' than Jews and that marriage between white Europeans and Jews or blacks is forbidden? It would be a top of the hour news story full of condemnation, newspapers would have front page headlines labeling the comments as 'anti-semetic' and 'racist.' The hypothetical individual would be sacked in an instant and would ostracised for life and would more than likely be charged with 'hate speech' and 'incitement to racial hatred.' Why do you think that is? And why do we gentiles not hear about such comments in the Western media? Maybe because our media is controlled by the same people who would rather the gentile world didn't hear such views. You can be sure if these comments were made by a European that it would be front page news in Israel. How many of you know that it is illegal in Israel for a Jew to marry a gentile? Yet Jews are constantly advocating and pushing for mass immigration into our nations and encourage interracial marriage for white gentiles.

As for the comments on homosexuality, most of you know our position on that, the point of the post is to show the blatant double standards Jewish supremacists have for us, the gentiles, and policies they support for us but not for themselves. In the West, the gay lobby and 'gay rights' have been dominated and supported by Jewish groups who view homosexuality in the West as one way among many to debase Western culture and morality. When westerners oppose the militant gay agenda they are portrayed as 'homophobic bigots' by the media and leftist groups who have Jewish marxists pulling their strings.

Jews openly support 'gay rights' in the West, and this is not because of any real concern for 'gay rights' but simply because it is part of a much wider strategy to attack the West and Christianity which they despise with an atavistic hatred.

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. Charles Silberman writes that:

"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social issues.”


Joe Biden commends Jewish leaders for pushing gay marriage agenda:

http://m.global.christianpost.com/news/joe-biden-commends-jewish-leaders-for-pushing-gay-marriage-agenda--96474/

Jewish Control of 'Gay Rights' even some homosexuals themselves acknowledge the Jewish subversive role in pushing the Gay Agenda:

http://gblt.webs.com/enemy_control.htm


The Homosexual Agenda is Jewish:

http://stopcg.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/the-homosexual-agenda-is-jewish/

Jewish Groups Behind Homosexual and Lesbian Movement:

http://www.intmensorg.info/hlm.htm




We could go on and on providing links that show the overwhelming Jewish involvement the militant gay agenda but the ones provided should be enough to hopefully start you off.

www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.566021

Sunday, 22 December 2013

Why Jewish Guilt in Communism Matters

Source

You see as normal a world in which Europeans are continually insulted by Jews for being “Nazis”, even the Europeans whose ancestors fought against the Nazis. You see as normal a world in which every manifestation of European nationalism is stigmatised as Nazism and greeted with special repressive measures.

In this world, flayed by guilt, which they passively and meekly accept and internalise, Europeans have no chance of defending their countries against islamisation. Seen as tainted by some kind of “Nazi” original sin, the only way Europeans can redeem themselves is to mutely hand their countries over to the aliens and hope for the best.

You see this world as normal because that’s the world we live in.

But I don’t see this world as normal. It is built on a falsified narrative of 20th century history, one which stresses the evils of nationalism, racism and right-wing politics. An authentic history, however, would acknowledge that anti-nationalism, political prejudice and left-wing politics had consequences that were as destructive, if not more destructive, than nationalism, and that the excesses of nationalism were among those consequences. In other words, extreme nationalism was a reaction to artificially-imposed extreme anti-nationalism. 

Those anti-nationalist ideas have been expressed in ideologies like Communism and multiculturalism. Each of these movements, if they even deserve to be considered separate movements, has exhibited the vastly disproportionate involvement of diaspora Jews in the fermentation of their ideas, their promotion through intellectual discourse and their implementation at the policy level. Anti-nationalism is, literally, the worst idea in history. 

If you could quantify the misery and death the violation of the nationalist principle – the idea that a people should live in a homogeneous ethnic group in its own territory under its own government – has provoked, it would be staggering to contemplate. History is largely the chronicle of the unpleasantness that arises when this principle is violated.

The islamisation of Europe is the consequence of the elevation of anti-nationalism to be the dominant moral ideal of our age. Immigration is the most obvious consequence of the elite’s embrace of this destructive ideal. And islamisation is the consequence of immigration.

When people are infected by HIV, they don’t die of HIV. HIV is just a state of weakness. It is when they catch a secondary infection in this vulnerable state that fatality results. That’s how it is with modern Europe. Islam is not the problem. Islam is what will kill us. But it’s the secondary infection, not the underlying malady. The underlying malady is anti-nationalism.

To some Europeans, it will no doubt sound banal to say that islamisation is the consequence of immigration because, for many of them, the two are inseparable. But this is much less obvious to Americans, since America has been a country of immigration since its inception. Because the American influence is dominant within the Counterjihad movement, and because much of the Counterjihad movement wishes to make itself as inoffensive as possible to elite opinion, in a pitiful attempt to win mainstream acceptance, this fairly obvious truth goes generally unacknowledged. Many Counterjihad activists will abstain from saying anything about immigration for fear of being accused of racism.

A more rounded history of the 20th century would be the clearest possible refutation of the ideal of multiculturalism. It would show that the fact of having different peoples living in the same territory inevitably produces unpleasant results. Even after centuries, separate peoples retain their own sense of ethnic distinctness because the urge to empathise with your own ancestral kin group is an ineradicable part of human nature. Cherishing their own separateness, these distinct ethnic groups inevitably generate conflicts of interests and end up plotting against one another. 

The Jews plotted against the Europeans in whose countries they were living and the Europeans plotted back, or vice versa. It doesn’t matter. The point is that the best way to have a harmonious world is to have separate peoples living in their own territories. That is the policy conclusion that an authentic 20th century history would tend to lead to.

The warped narrative we have all been treated to hitherto, however, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that nationalism, ethnic identification, and the quest for territorial homogeneity is a terrible scourge which we must all be on constant guard against; that having different peoples living in the same territory is a great and enriching thing; and that all we need is a state willing to victimise the majority population, criminalise its free expression and use its power to crush any incipient manifestation of pride or self-assertion among its people.

The recent persecution of Golden Dawn is a good example of where the dominant narrative takes us. Now, Golden Dawn are very far from being my political ideal. Whatever their imperfections, however, they were one of the best hopes for stopping the islamisation of Greece and Europe in the only way that actually matters: achieving governmental power and using it to stop Muslim immigration and facilitate or enforce Muslim ex-migration. 

That hope may now have been extinguished, partly through direct and indirect pressure from Jewish organisations; and partly through the mythologised narrative of 20th century history that assigns some demonic significance to nationalism, racism and right-wing politics more generally. The EDL likewise have been wounded by the same bizarre European guilt obsessions arising from this distorted account of history.

Jews generally have no difficulty with the concept of ulterior, even subconscious, motivation. Freud, after all, who pioneered the concept of the subconscious, was a Jew. It is common to hear, for example, European governments accused of disguised or subconscious antisemitism for their policies towards Israel or the Palestinians. Why, then, do you have such difficulty with the idea that the Jews active in Communist movements could have had ulterior or even subconscious motivations related to their Jewishness? 

Are we really expected to believe it was pure coincidence that a group of excluded outsiders embraced and implemented an ideology that denigrated almost every aspect of mainstream European society, that sanctioned its deconstruction, the erasure of all its traditions, the wiping out of Christianity, the suppression of European patriot movements and the criminalisation of antisemitism?

I don’t take accusations of antisemitism any more seriously than I take accusations of islamophobia or racism. These are terms designed to shut down rational discussion by imputing impure motivations to opponents and elevating subjective considerations such as emotion and motivation above the core criterion of objective truth. In the world of serious discourse, however, a person’s motivations don’t matter. Facts matter. It is examination of the facts that has led me to take a critical view of the influence Jews have had on European history through their promotion of anti-nationalist ideas. Not that it matters, but I was emotionally well-disposed towards Jews prior to becoming aware of these facts. If any of the facts I have cited are inaccurate, I would welcome their correction. 

But that would be to engage in rational discourse. And we have seen no sign of a willingness to do that. Even you, in your comment, make no attempt to cite any factual inaccuracy. The post you are responding to consists almost entirely of quotes from a Jewish historian who acknowledges the Jewish role in the Communist dictatorships and balances this presentation of facts, overly so I would say, by offering a sympathetic appreciation of the context in which the Jews made the choices that they did.

Instead of rational engagement, we see exactly what I expected when I decided to broach this issue: the de rigueur insults of antisemitism, much like the de rigueur insults of islamophobia, and the silent withdrawal of support from websites that claim to be part of a Counterjihad movement. It is clear that these websites are primarily engaged, not in resisting Islamic Jihad, but in promoting the (perceived) interests of Jewry. 

They are interested in resisting Islam only insofar as the Islamic agenda conflicts with the interests of Jewry, which it clearly does to a significant degree. But that far and no further. When the two agendas come into conflict, the anti-jihad agenda falls by the wayside. Even the Counterjihad sites run by gentiles fear the disapproval of Jews, either because they are economically reliant on them in some way or because they have internalised the codes of conduct created to delegitimise criticism of Jews.

As I said, this response was anticipated when I first started talking about this issue. Nonetheless, it is dismaying to see the lack of moral and intellectual integrity in people you once respected. These are people who spend much of their lives presenting tangible evidence to a hostile mainstream audience unwilling to set aside its preconceptions in favour of the facts. At every turn, they are accused of having impure motivations, of being animated by hatred. 

You would hope, then, that these same people, having faced down the intimidating accusation of wickedness themselves, having bravely brandished factual truth in the face of the hostile arbiters of acceptable opinion, would themselves, when they found their own preconceptions challenged, be better than their own adversaries had been. But, tragically, they’re not. When presented with facts that challenge their preconceptions about Jews, they react in exactly the same way that their mainstream interlocutors do when presented with facts that jar with their preconceptions about Muslims.

The notion that a people – any people – could provoke a mindless, irrational hatred in almost everyone it comes into contact with is a very strange one, much like the idea that a religion could provoke irrational hatred and fear in anyone who comes into contact with its practitioners. 

Yet these very strange ideas are accepted without challenge in the mainstream discourse of our times. If I claimed, for example, that I knew of a dog that was persecuted everywhere it went: other dogs barked at it and attacked it; no one would give it food; children would throw stones at it for no reason; drivers would swerve to try and run it over, etc. the story would provoke extreme scepticism.

It would sound so utterly fantastical, so at variance with our normal understanding of the world, as to hint almost at something supernatural. Individuals who claimed to be persecuted in this way would be classed as paranoid schizophrenic. Rather than indulge these fantasies, the best way to help someone suffering from this affliction would be to explain to them that other people’s responses to them would be governed by their own behaviour, just like every other person in the world, and that the idea of being singled out for persecution in some fateful way was absurd. The fact that so many seemingly rational Jews can take seriously the idea that they have some mystical identity which causes them to be persecuted for no reason is deeply disturbing. 

This bespeaks an Oriental, non-European mindset in which things happen because of supernatural agency. The European mind, by contrast, seeks rational explanations for the way the world works.
When one people attempts to live as a discrete minority in the homeland of another, setting itself apart, adopting an us-and-them mentality, favouring its own in-group in every interaction, it is going to end badly, sooner or later. This is simply human nature in operation. It is not the result of some mystical evil called antisemitism.

The lesson to be drawn from the tragic experience of the Jews throughout history is that anti-nationalism – in other words having different peoples living in the same territory – is a bad idea. Yet most Jews, at least diaspora Jews, have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion. No people can be secure without a homeland of its own. yet the effect of the anti-nationalist ideas advocated by so many Jews is that the peoples of Europe will lose control of their homelands.

I have to say I am repulsed, but not surprised, by the inability of Jews to acknowledge fault. It is the perfect analogue of the Muslim inability to acknowledge fault because it conflicts with their Koran-mandated self-image as the “perfect nation”. How is it antisemitic to simply take note of the fact that anti-nationalist ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Jews have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them? If I take note of the fact that Socialistic ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Scots have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them, does that make me antiscotistic or Scotophobic?

Why can you Jews not make such a simple acknowledgement yourself? Are you so steeped in a lachrymose narrative of victimhood in which innocent Jews suffer continuously at the hands of evil goy that you cannot admit that Jews, like every other people on earth, have, at times, had conflicts of interest with other peoples and, at times, have committed grievous wrongs against those other peoples? No European people that I am know of claims to have innocently glided through history without ever having had a conflict of interest with other peoples, without ever having engaged in contention with other peoples and, at times, having wronged those other peoples. 

To my knowledge, Muslims are the only other people who make this claim. The Koran tells Muslims they are the “Perfect Nation”. Jews believe they are the Chosen People. Although rarely voiced publicly these days, it is clear that this idea still influences the outlook of many Jews. Nothing else can account for such a reluctance to acknowledge fault or the strength of the curious conviction that a people is destined to be the constant target of persecution and that this persecution will be completely unrelated to its own actions.

You say you have no difficulty blaming Jews when appropriate and then cite an example in which you blame Jews for not resisting Nazism more forcefully. But this was mere passivity on the part of the Jews, not actual wrong-doing against another people. Can you give me any example from history in which Jews engaged in wrong-doing against another people?

I have to say that the unwillingness of Jews to acknowledge responsibility for their historical actions takes me much closer to a feeling of general antisemitism than my awareness of the Jewish role in Communism does. The Jewish role in Communism is a detail of history from a time in which there were many mitigating circumstances to explain the choices Jews made. The Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility is not a historical curio, however. It is right here among us in the present day and it comes from Jews who live in completely secure circumstances and who otherwise sound like reasonable people. 

We could compare the Jewish role in the atrocities of Communism to the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians in the WW1 era. As various diplomats have pointed out when attempting to persuade the Turkish government to be rational on this issue, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with modern Turkey. If Turkey acknowledged that the genocide had occurred, admitted wrong-doing by a previous generation of Turks and expressed its regrets, the issue would be closed and we could move on. 

The fact that modern Turkey is unwilling to do this, however, hints that something sinister and ugly is going on. It suggests that whatever attitudes lay behind the Armenian Genocide still exist. And Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge their culpability in relation to the atrocities of Communism evokes the same possibility.

Discussion and exploration of Jewish guilt in Communism is important for the following reasons:
  • 1) It would establish that anti-nationalism had consequences that were as destructive, or more so, than nationalism. 
This is critical. The dominant political narrative portrays Nazism and, by extension, right-wing politics generally as being uniquely sinister and associated with violence and mass murder. Factual analysis doesn’t support that claim, however. 

The mass exterminations resulting from the political prejudice of Communism were greater in scope than the Nazi extermination based on racial prejudice. Throughout the post-WW2 era, right-wing terrorism has been almost unknown in Europe, while left-wing terrorism has been a chronic problem. In the present day, Europol issues annual reports cataloguing terrorist incidents in Europe. From these reports it is clear that right-wing terrorist incidents are rare to non-existent, while dozens of left-wing terrorist incidents occur every year. Highlighting the atrocities of Communism is one way of restoring balance to public perception.
  • 2) It would make it clear that when individuals who self-identify as belonging to different peoples live in the same territory, they will, ultimately, perceive themselves as being threatened by the interests and actions of the other group and will try to ward off the perceived threat from the other group. 
This will cause unpleasantness to at least one of the ethnic factions and very often both. And this is true regardless of how highly qualified or economically successful the groups are, refuting the core contention of the immigration apologists that immigration should be assessed solely in terms of the obvious indicators of economic success.
  • 3) It would establish that Europeans can be victims as well as perpetrators. Unlike anti-semitism, which is a marginal phenomenon, anti-Europeanism is the dominant ideology of the world. It is so overwhelmingly dominant that it is not even regarded as a distinct ideology. It is simply regarded as “the norm”. 
The emotional grip of this ideology rests on tales of Europeans doing bad things to non-Europeans in instances such as the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, imperialism, etc. These accounts are, to say the least, unbalanced. 

They leave out key facts such as that all societies we know of practised slavery since the dawn of recorded time and that Europeans, after indulging in the practice for a few hundreds years, were the ones who stamped it out; that imperialism often brought betterment to the countries that experienced it in ways that can be measured through metrics such as life expectancy, population size, etc. 

Standard accounts of the Holocaust are also fundamentally unbalanced in that they neglect to mention the key fact that Nazism was a reaction to Bolshevism, that Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, and that millions of Europeans, and almost every constituent element of European society, were liquidated under Bolshevist rule. This was ethnic war wearing a mask of morality.
  • 4) It would destroy the destroy the harmful myth of the innocence of Jews. The dominant narrative of the 20th century assigns Jews the role of passive, innocent victims to a mindless, irrational evil. 
This gives them a special moral authority, which they have not hesitated to invoke at every opportunity to push for open-borders immigration, diversity and the de-Europeanisation of European societies more generally. 

This may not be as apparent in America. But in Europe, any attempt to limit immigration, to discuss its harmful effects or to distinguish between various streams of immigrants results in the Nazi card being played almost instantly. Once the truth that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism, and Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, is established in the public mind, that special moral authority disappears for good. 

The standard mythology is an extraordinarily powerful tool that Jews can use to advance their own purposes. It is understandable that any people would be reluctant to give up such an all-conquering trump card. Nonetheless, truth demands that they do so.
  • 5) It is simply a moral imperative that atrocities of this magnitude be acknowledged and their perpetrators held to account.
Everything that is true of the Holocaust – the memorials, the commemorative ceremonies, the presence in textbooks and the popular imagination, the mantra of “We must never forget” – is equally true of the atrocities of the Bolshevist regimes, which were greater in scope than the Holocaust. It is an abomination that these truths are not more generally known. Imagine that we lived in a world where the Holocaust had been obscured from history. 

People were generally aware that there had been a war, that bad things had happened and that a lot of people had been killed, but nothing about a deliberate program to exterminate the Jews was known to the ordinary person. Only a few people reading esoteric books would occasionally stumble on this truth. 

Whenever they tried to raise it for public discussion, they would be immediately accused of paranoid anti-Germanism, anti-Europeanism or anti-Christianism and silenced. That’s the world we live in. In reverse. Anyone who denies Jewish guilt in the atrocities of Communism after the facts have been presented to them is the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.
  • 6) There is, it seems to me, inherent value in establishing the point that the world is explicable, that there are reasons why things happen. If we are to improve the world, we must first understand it. 
A narrative that postulates the existence of a mindless, irrational evil that mysteriously blinks into existence from time to time is childlike, primitive, absurd and un-European. 

This is how Orientals see the world, in the simplistic chiaroscuro of good vs. evil. A mature understanding of the world can accommodate nuance and assign more morally complex roles to history’s actors than the cartoon characterisation of goodies vs. baddies. 

The truth about the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe is that Jews and Europeans mutually victimised one another for reasons that were partially understandable, even if the atrocious form their vengeance took is ultimately unpardonable. If we wish to avert the possibility that such things could happen again, we must understand why they happened the first time. 

And the standard narrative – that the Nazis came to power through a combination of economic crisis and the spellbinding rhetoric of an evil demagogue – is simply false. Such an account deprives Nazi atrocities of their meaning. 

The Jews who died at Hitler’s hands are not honoured or ennobled by false accounts of what led up to their murder. The opposite is true. The truth is that at the heart of the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe was ethnic conflict. 

And this ethnic conflict only came about because the principle of nationalism – different peoples living as homogeneous groups in their own homelands under their own governmental authority – had been violated. Jews were living outside of their ancestral homeland ruled by non-Jews. Germans were living outside of Germany ruled by non-Germans. The twin facts set off emotional chain reactions culminating in tragedy.

Once I see general acknowledgement by Jews of their moral culpability in this; once I see them express repentance and engage in the critical and public moral self-examination that Europeans have engaged in with regard to nationalism; once I see Jewish guilt in Communism become a matter of public knowledge and parallels drawn with the modern Jewish embrace of multiculturalism, 

I will be happy to let this issue drop. Until then, I will continue to talk about it. If that makes people unhappy or uncomfortable, then they had best go elsewhere.

Thursday, 12 December 2013

Multiculturalism and Marxism


An Englishman Looks at the Soviet Origins of Political Correctness
By Frank Ellis

"For the purposes of everyday life it was no doubt necessary, or sometimes necessary, to reflect before speaking, but a Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgment should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying out bullets." – George Orwell, "1984"

No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency towards multiculturalism or multiracialism. Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who support multiculturalism either do not know this or, what is more likely, realize that if they are to transform Western societies into strictly regulated, racial-feminist bureaucracies they must first undermine those societies.
This transformation is as radical and revolutionary as the project to establish Communism in the Soviet Union. Just as every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists hope to control and dominate every aspect of our lives. Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a softer, gentler tyranny but one with which they hope to bind us as tightly as a prisoner in the Gulag. Today's "political correctness" is the direct descendent of Communist terror and brainwashing.

Unlike the obviously alien implantation that was Communism, what makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West.

What we call "political correctness" actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil'nost' in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy – which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.

As Mao Tse-Tung, the Great Helmsman, put it, "Not to have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul." Mao's "Little Red Book" is full of exhortations to follow the correct path of Communist thought, and by the late 1960s Maoist political correctness was well established in American universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is the result of cross-fertilization with all the latest "isms:" anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, and post-modernism, which now dominate university curricula. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism, whose parallels to the Communist era are obvious. Today's dogmas have led to rigid requirements of language, thought, and behavior, and violators are treated as if they were mentally unbalanced, just as Soviet dissidents were.

Some have argued that it is unfair to describe Stalin's regime as "totalitarian," pointing out that one man, no matter how ruthlessly he exercised power, could not control all the functions of the state. But, in fact, he didn't have to. Totalitarianism was much more than state terror, censorship, and concentration camps; it was a state of mind in which the very idea of a private opinion or point of view had been destroyed. The totalitarian propagandist forces people to believe that slavery is freedom, squalor is bounty, ignorance is knowledge, and that a rigidly closed society is the most open in the world. And once enough people are made to think this way, it is functionally totalitarian even if a single dictator does not personally control everything.
Today, of course, we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that relentlessly repeating these ideas over and over is "tolerance and diversity." 

Indeed, the multicultural revolution works subversion everywhere, just as Communist revolutions did: judicial activism undermines the rule of law; "tolerance" weakens the conditions that make real tolerance possible; universities, which should be havens of free inquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time, we find a relentless drive for equality: the Bible, Shakespeare, and rap "music" are just texts with "equally valid perspectives;" deviant and criminal behaviour is an "alternative life-style."

Today, Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" would have to be repackaged as Crime and Counseling.
In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence. The purges of the 1930s and the Great Terror (which was Mao's model for the Cultural Revolution) used violence against "class enemies" to compel loyalty. Party members signed death warrants for "enemies of the people" knowing that the accused were innocent, but believing in the correctness of the charges. In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. As cited by Robert Conquest in "The Harvest of Sorrow" (p. 143), the state's view of this class was, "not one of them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything." Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.
This, of course, is the beauty of "racism" and "sexism" for today's culture attackers – sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations.
The charge of "institutional racism" is no different from declaring an entire economic class an enemy of the people. "Racism" and "sexism" are multiculturalism's assault weapons, its Big Ideas, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same.

If a crime can be collectivized all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are today's version of the Russian peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone they "belong to the race that is guilty of everything."

The purpose of these multi-cultural campaigns is to destroy the self. The mouth moves, the right gestures follow, but they are the mouth and gestures of a zombie, the new Soviet man or, today, PC-man. And once enough people have been conditioned this way, violence is no longer necessary. We reach steady-state totalitarianism, in which the vast majority know what is expected of them and play their allotted roles.

The Russian experiment with revolution and totalitarian social engineering has been fully chronicled by two of that country's greatest writers, Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn. They brilliantly dissect the methods and psychology of totalitarian control. Dostoevsky's "The Devils" has no equal as a penetrating and disturbing analysis of the revolutionary and utopian mind.
The "devils" are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand. The ruling class tries to ingratiate itself with them. The universities have essentially declared war on society at large. The great cry of the student radicals is freedom: freedom from the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality, freedom from the past.

Russia's descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of what happens when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a terrestrial paradise. Dostoevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted but Solzhenitsyn experienced them first hand.

"The Gulag Archipelago" and "August 1914" can be seen as histories of ideas, as attempts to account for the dreadful fate that befell Russia after 1917. Solzhenitsyn identifies education and the way teachers saw their duty as instilling hostility to all forms of traditional authority as the major factors that explain why Russia's youth was seduced by revolutionary ideas. In the West, during the 1960s and 1970s – which can collectively be called "the 60s" – we hear a powerful echo of the collective mental capitulation of Russia that took place in the 1870s and continued through the revolution.
One of the echoes of Marxism that continues to reverberate today is the idea that truth resides in class (or sex or race or erotic orientation). Truth is not something to be established by rational inquiry, but depends on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural universe, a person's perspective is "valued" (a favorite word) according to class. Feminists, blacks, environmentalists and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth because they are "oppressed." In the misery of "oppression" they see truth more clearly than the white heterosexual men who "oppress" them.

This is a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat's moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie. Today, "oppression" confers a "privileged perspective" that is essentially infallible. To borrow an expression from Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," black and feminist activists are "case-hardened against logical argument" – just as Communist true believers were.

Indeed, feminist and anti-racist activists openly reject objective truth. Confident that they have intimidated their opposition, feminists are able to make all kinds of demands on the assumption that men and women are equal in every way. When outcomes do not match that belief, this is only more evidence of white-male deviltry.

One of the most depressing sights in the West today, particularly in the universities and in the media, is the readiness to treat feminism as a major contribution to knowledge and to submit to its absurdities. Remarkably, this requires no physical violence. It is the desire to be accepted that makes people truckle to these middle-class, would-be revolutionaries. Peter Verkhovensky, who orchestrates murder and mayhem in The Devils, expresses it with admirable contempt: "All I have to do is to raise my voice and tell them that they are not sufficiently liberal." The race hustlers, of course, play the same game: Accuse a late-20th century liberal of "racism" or "sexism" and watch him fall apart in an orgy of self-flagellation and Maoist self-criticism. Even "conservatives" wilt at the sound of those words.

Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it comes to "racism:" You are guilty until proven innocent, which is nearly impossible, and even then you are forever suspect. An accusation of "racism" has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century Salem.
It is the power of the charge of "racism" that stifles the derision that would otherwise meet the idea that we should "value diversity." If "diversity" had real benefits whites would want more of it, and would ask that yet more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants. Of course, they are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism; they are in headlong flight in the opposite direction. Valuing diversity is a hobby for people who do not have to endure its benefits.
A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the "multicultural" rather than the more precise "multiracial." Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea of the West.

How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had a massive system of censorship – the Communists even censored street maps – and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the inhabitants of "peoples democracies" soon learned.
The situation in the West is not so straightforward. There is nothing remotely comparable to Soviet-style government censorship and yet we have deliberate suppression of dissent. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney have all been vilified for their racial views. The case of Prof. Rushton is particularly troubling because his academic work was investigated by the police. The attempt to silence him was based on provisions of Canadian hate speech laws. This is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the old Soviet Union. To find it in a country that prides itself on being a pillar of Western liberal democracy is one of the most disturbing consequences of multiculturalism.

A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bartold Brecht's principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges; street-wise, straight-shooting lady policemen; minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men. This is almost a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealized depictions of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.

Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism. It is absolutist in the pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies. Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions: First, multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.

Such a society would be well on its way to becoming totalitarian. It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in "white-male hegemonic discourse." Rather than the hard totalitarianism of the Soviet state we would have a softer version in which our minds would be wards of the state. We would be liberated from the burden of thought and therefore unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness.

If we think of multiculturalism as yet another manifestation of 20th century totalitarianism, can we take solace in the fact that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed? Is multiculturalism a phase, a periodic crisis through which the West is passing, or does it represent something fundamental and perhaps irreversible?
Despite the efforts of pro-Soviet elements, the West recognized the Soviet empire as a threat. It does not recognize multiculturalism as a threat in the same way. For this reason, many of its assumptions and objectives remain unchallenged. Still, there are some grounds for optimism, for example, the speed with which the term "political correctness" caught on. It took the tenured radicals completely by surprise, but it is only a small gain.
In the long term, the most important battleground in the war against multiculturalism is the United States. The struggle is likely to be a slow, frustrating war of attrition. If it fails, the insanity of multiculturalism is something white Americans will have to live with. Of course, at some point whites may demand an end to being punished because of black failure. As Prof. Michael Hart argues in "The Real American Dilemma" (published by New Century Foundation and available from American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com) for $11.95, postage paid), there could be racial partition of the United States. We may find that what happened in the Balkans is not peculiar to that part of the world. Race war is not something the affluent radicals deliberately seek but their policies are pushing us in that direction.
I have argued so far that the immediate context for understanding political correctness and multiculturalism is the Soviet Union and its catastrophic utopian experiment. And yet the PC/multicultural mentality is much older. In "Reflections on the Revolution in France," Edmund Burke offers a portrait of the French radicals that is still relevant 200 years after he wrote it:
"They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things, because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery."
Of course, multiculturalism is far from being a solution to racial or cultural conflict. Quite the contrary. Multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in this gruesome 20th century, a hell that man, having abandoned reason and in revolt against

God's order, builds for himself and others.


Frank Ellis is professor of Russian at the University of Leeds in England.

Saturday, 7 December 2013

Inside the mind of a white self hating Ethnomasochist.


This is a look inside the mind of your average self hating, ethnomasochist, cultural marxist white anti-white.

The following was written on 2nd January 2013 by Gillian Schutte, feminist, filmmaker, writer, poet, activist, author and miscegenist, who is from South Africa and who targets white South Africans with this attempt at indoctrinating them with falsified history and false guilt.

After reading this, and after no doubt being enraged, we provide a response to this anti-white traitor to her people, culture and heritage from a poster who signs off as 'Euro Rabbit.'

Dear White People

I have decided to start the New Year with a letter to you all. It is a letter that implores you to wake up and smell Africa with a fresh white nose.

Before you get angry and defensive, think of this letter as a crash course survival kit for navigating a new reality, and please be assured that if you take heed of the call in this letter your life will change in miraculous ways. Once the blinkers are off the world is a much more colourful and celebratory place to engage in.

Let me begin by wholeheartedly apologising for what my ancestors did to the people of South Africa and inviting you to do the same. I reject their legacy as much as is possible and, as you already know, have made it a life mission to deconstruct the phallocentric white view of ”white as right” and the misguided precept that white is central to all reality.

I reject the discourse of white domination but I acknowledge that I was brought up in this construct. Though my single-mother household was never economically privileged we were privileged by virtue of our skin colour and my mother was given assistance by the state that a woman of colour was denied.

I call on white people to reflect on what it means to be born into unearned privilege, to excavate our long history of racist exploitation and assumed superiority — to acknowledge that this is what we were taught and then to reject it wholly.

I call on white people to acknowledge that whiteness has become invisible to us and we no longer recognise it for a discourse that perpetuates the dehumanisation of black people in ways so subtle that they appear normal.

I call on white people to admit that the rainbow nation is a myth and until we truly are able to recognise the humanity of all people we cannot claim to be post-racist.

I call on white people to acknowledge how white supremacy continues to play out in the media — in representations of blackness — in the constant accusation that black people are racist when they speak their truth.

I call on white people to recognise the black-bashing trend of our media, which is largely white owned, and to put an end to this dehumanising and destructive infantile idiocy.

I call on white people to recognise that by jumping in on national debates that do not concern them they are usurping a platform for authentic black voices to air their grievances about our leadership. You may have noticed that the black voices we need and want to hear choose to disengage because they are skaam to share the podium with a lot of cacophonic white outrage about the same topic but from a white racist perspective.

White people please just shut up for once and listen. Not everything is about white people being accused of racism. Sometimes it is about the black middle class and whether or not they have adopted vile white practices.

I implore you, white people, to listen to black voices calmly and not to react defensively to every outrage a black voice presents.

I call on white people to accept that they are not the only race that is entitled to rage, to hurt, to pain, to anger.

I call on white people, to recognise that they fear the emotions of black people — that it is this fear that makes them shut down black voices and defend themselves from the suggestion that they are complicit in the continued oppression of black people.

I call on white people to recognise that we have all been taught (in varying degrees) that black people do not have the same emotions and psychology as us and that this fallacy is built upon the double-edged sword of domination and fear. To dehumanise a people is to exploit them with no guilt. To recognise their collective pain is to admit the guilt thereby see the humanity.

I call on white people to recognise how whiteness has unconsciously used blackness as a conduit for its own darkness and unacknowledged savagery.

I implore white people to get over their fear that black people are out to slaughter them in a wholesale genocide of revenge. It has not happened yet and there is so much evidence that it will never happen in a country that has built its economic policy on global standards that favour whiteness and rely on the middle class as a buffer zone between the people on the ground and the elite corporate and political class. Just get over yourselves. White people of middle class are still safer than people living in townships.

I call on white people to work on a strategy to lessen the growing gap between rich and poor because, white people, it is the poor who are really suffering in this country and it is the poor who are the wretched fall-out from a more than 360-year history of white domination, slavery, subjugation and theft of livelihood.

I call on white people to understand that poverty and unemployment are social conditions. By renaming them ”laziness”, ”lack of ambition” and ”stupidity” you are furthering your own illogical delusions that whiteness has nothing to do with the untenable conditions that most black people are forced to live in. These are not inherent traits of being black, as many of you are fond of saying. These are the social consequences of a brutal colonial history and current globalisation — coupled with weak anti-the-poor leadership.

And please white people, when you feel compelled to criticise Zuma, as we all do, please ensure that you are critiquing him for his favouring of white corporates and the white middle class over poverty issues — for his pro-capitalist stance and his failure to deliver to the poor — for his patriarchal utterances that threaten to usurp women’s rights — rather than obsessing over his penis, his wives, his second-language command of English and using him as a scapegoat for all your fears and negative unconscious stereotypes about all black folk.

Oh and one more thing … asseblief white people, from well-meaning liberals to white supremacists — just stop telling everyone who is not white how to behave, what to think and when to say what. By trying to control the public agenda you are participating in your own imagined oppression and avoiding the possibility that we are all human and can co-exist very nicely.

Be grateful that you are still welcome in a land that was stolen.

And stop bitching and telling black people to get over their history. Goddammit — if those things had happened to white people there would be an entire world domination film industry built upon the “legitimised suffering of white people” so why will you not understand that colonialism was a holocaust of epic proportions and it will take many, many more decades for the pain to subside.

Instead of defending your privileges by denying them and nursing your guilt through misguided outrage — why not get your hands dirty while helping to restore this country to a space of dignity and respect for all.

Try now to reconsider the possibility of the healing potential of apologising collectively and genuinely for the wrongs our history has perpetrated against the indigenous people of this land.

Oh ja … and white people, please try not to respond negatively and vilely to my letter because I will never stop pleading with you to get over yourselves and get with the current programme. It is as easy as the blink of an eye.

Yours sincerely,

Settler Sister

Source:
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/gillianschutte/2013/01/02/dear-white-people/?wpmp_switcher=true

...............................................................
The Response:


Dear all self-hating white liberals,


GS - I have decided to start the New Year with a letter to you all. It is a letter that implores you to wake up and smell Africa with a fresh white nose.


ER - You've decided to start the New Year with a hate-filled anti-white letter to all self-loving white Europeans, a letter which implores us to ditch our pro-white beliefs and to wake up to an Africa with a fresh anti-white nose.

GS - Before you get angry and defensive, think of this letter as a crash course survival kit for navigating a new reality, and please be assured that if you take heed of the call in this letter your life will change in miraculous ways. Once the blinkers are off the world is a much more colourful and celebratory place to engage in.

ER - No anger here, but your tone already seems to reak of anti-white liberalism at its most highest degree.  Don't you mean, "think of this letter as a crash course in anti-white indoctrination"? A "new reality" which, if adopted, will lead to the destruction to white Europeans as a whole? I doubt it will change my life at all. Just the gasps of the heavy amount of anti-white sentiments it contains. Haven't you heard, 'White is right'? Multiculturalism is GENOCIDE. Why not "celebrate" the wonder of Detroit, or Malmo?  More "colour" always seems to end with more unwanted violence, crime, sexual assault, immense black-on-white rape and decreased standard of living both socially and economically.


GS - Let me begin by wholeheartedly apologising for what my ancestors did to the people of South Africa and inviting you to do the same. I reject their legacy as much as is possible and, as you already know, have made it a life mission to deconstruct the phallocentric white view of ”white as right” and the misguided precept that white is central to all reality.

ER - Apologising? What's there to apologise for? For giving the blacks of SA more opportunites for employment, advanced technology, higher standards of living (higher than what they would have ever dreamed of), the domination and rape of hundreds and thousands of innocent White Boer men and women? I invite you, Mommy Professor, to apologize for the Genocide of White Boers which you openly encourage. Your misguided 'black is right' perception of the world will never be a logical, nor 'right' concept of reality as it's based on one of the greatest myths the Earth have ever heard.

GS - I reject the discourse of white domination but I acknowledge that I was brought up in this construct.

ER - If you reject the discourse of 'white domination', then the logical reaction would be tio reject black domination. Do you reject or encourage 'black domination' over whites? If your parents were murdered by one of the several viscious black supremacist and racist groups of South Africa, would your stance on this argument be any different?

GS - I call on white people to reflect on what it means to be born into unearned privilege, to excavate our long history of racist exploitation and assumed superiority — to acknowledge that this is what we were taught and then to reject it wholly.

ER - The entire concept of "white privilege" is a myth created by self-hating liberals. It does not exist in reality, it only exists in your mind Mommy Professor. You can not use to 'history' to justify racism against whites who had no participation in what activities there ancestors may or may not have participated or committed. I like how you say 'assumed superiority', if one race has superior or more advanced technology than another, then it is acceptable and appropriate to say so. This offends your worldview that 'all races are equal'. There's nothing wrong in stating that one race makes better technology than another, just like it's not racist to state that Jamaican's run faster than Europeans or Asians. Again, how do you feel about black supremacists who are murdering White Boer farmers in the thousands?

GS - I call on white people to acknowledge that whiteness has become invisible to us and we no longer recognise it for a discourse that perpetuates the dehumanisation of black people in ways so subtle that they appear normal.

ER - Whiteness will never become invisible, just as blackness or 'Asianess' will never become invisible. There will always be Africans in Africa. There will always be Asians in Asia. But White countries for everybody? No one is perpetuating the dehumanisation of black people, that's another liberal-induced myth that does not exist in reality. It's a generally accepted fact that African nations have poorer standards of living than European nations or North-East Asian nations. Europeans/NE Asians just make more advanced socieities. Get with the times.

GS - I call on white people to admit that the rainbow nation is a myth and until we truly are able to recognise the humanity of all people we cannot claim to be post-racist.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to admit that the idea of Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, but White countries for everybody is a liberal constructed concept aiming to destroy European civilisation as a whole.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to recognise the self-determination of all European people and not claim to be anti-racist.

GS - I call on white people to acknowledge how white supremacy continues to play out in the media — in representations of blackness — in the constant accusation that black people are racist when they speak their truth.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to acknowledge how black supremacy continues to play out in all forms in the solely black-controlled South Africa government & in the media - in representations of whiteness - in the constant accusation that only white people are racist when they speak the truth, whereas self-hating white liberals or blacks enjoy immunity.

GS - I call on white people to recognise the black-bashing trend of our media, which is largely white owned, and to put an end to this dehumanising and destructive infantile idiocy.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to recognise the white-bashing and pro-multiculturalist trend of our media, which is disproportionately non-white owned, and to put an end to this dehumanising and destructive infatile idiocy.

GS - I call on white people to recognise that by jumping in on national debates that do not concern them they are usurping a platform for authentic black voices to air their grievances about our leadership. You may have noticed that the black voices we need and want to hear choose to disengage because they are skaam to share the podium with a lot of cacophonic white outrage about the same topic but from a white racist perspective.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to recognise that by jumping in on national debates that do not concern them they are usurping a platform for authentic white voices to air their grievances about the disproportionately black-controlled leadership in our government. You may have noticed that the white voices we need and want to hear choose to disengage because they are skaam to share the podium with a lot of cacophonic black supremacist outrage about the same topic, but from a black racist perspective.

GS - White people please just shut up for once and listen. Not everything is about white people being accused of racism. Sometimes it is about the black middle class and whether or not they have adopted vile white practices.

ER - Self-hating white liberals please just shut up for once and listen. Why do you always have to go off on and tangent and only accuse white people of racism? The black-controlled government must adapt with the times, and focus on the genocide that is evily being perpetrated against White Boer farmers where over 10,000 White boer farmers have been brutally murdered in their own homes through racially-motivated attacks encouraged by black-supremacist groups. Sometimes it is about white farmers and their security and wellbeing, rather than focusing on anti-white instituted racism.

GS - I implore you, white people, to listen to black voices calmly and not to react defensively to every outrage a black voice presents.

ER - I implore you, self-hating white liberals, to listen to white voices calmly and not to react defensively to every outrage a white voice presents.

GS - I call on white people to accept that they are not the only race that is entitled to rage, to hurt, to pain, to anger.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to accept that ALL races are entitled to rage, to hurt, to pain, to anger, while openly denigrating whites in the process.

GS - I call on white people, to recognise that they fear the emotions of black people — that it is this fear that makes them shut down black voices and defend themselves from the suggestion that they are complicit in the continued oppression of black people.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals, to recognise that they fear the emotions of WHITE people - that it is this fear that makes them shut down WHITE voices and defend themselves from the suggestion that they are complicit in the continued oppression of their fellow WHITE-descended people.

GS - I call on white people to recognise that we have all been taught (in varying degrees) that black people do not have the same emotions and psychology as us and that this fallacy is built upon the double-edged sword of domination and fear. To dehumanise a people is to exploit them with no guilt. To recognise their collective pain is to admit the guilt thereby see the humanity.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to recognise that we have all been taught that WHITE-descended Europeans are ALL evilracistnaziswhowanttokill6millionjews and that ALL living WHITES must suffer the same consequences that their ancestors may have perpetrated against other racial groups.

GS - I call on self-hating white liberals to recognise their dehumanisation of WHITES and to release themselves from the supposed 'guilt' they feel, an emotion induced through lies and hatred. To recognise their collective pain is to admit the WHITE GUILT they feel.

I call on white people to recognise how whiteness has unconsciously used blackness as a conduit for its own darkness and unacknowledged savagery.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to recognise how the indoctrination of White guilt has unconsciously used the anti-white concepts such as multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration as a conduit for its own darkness and unacknowledged savagery.

GS - I implore white people to get over their fear that black people are out to slaughter them in a wholesale genocide of revenge. It has not happened yet and there is so much evidence that it will never happen in a country that has built its economic policy on global standards that favour whiteness and rely on the middle class as a buffer zone between the people on the ground and the elite corporate and political class. Just get over yourselves. White people of middle class are still safer than people living in townships.

ER - I implore self-hating white liberals to get over their fear that WHITE people are out to slaughter and exploit non-whites in a wholesale genocide of 'imperialism'.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to accept responsibility for the genocide of tens of thousands of White Boer farmers since the destruction of Apartheid. Racially-motivated acts of murder and rape are being perpetrated against Whites in a country that has established itself as a pro-black and anti-white governmental establishment where whites are exempt from many business practices and are being forced to flee for their own safety. White farmers are not safe in rural and farming areas.

GS - I call on white people to work on a strategy to lessen the growing gap between rich and poor because, white people, it is the poor who are really suffering in this country and it is the poor who are the wretched fall-out from a more than 360-year history of white domination, slavery, subjugation and theft of livelihood.

ER - I call on self-hating white liberals to work on strategies to lessen the growing black-on-white racially motivate violence, because it is really white people who are really suffering in this country and it is white people who are feeling the effects of anti-white institutional racism, subjugation and theft of livelihood for reasons pertaining to their ancestors, totally irrelevant. I call on self-hating white liberals to object to the forced-stealing of White owned and controlled farms and to return the governments forced-stolen farms to their former owners.

GS - I call on white people to understand that poverty and unemployment are social conditions. By renaming them ”laziness”, ”lack of ambition” and ”stupidity” you are furthering your own illogical delusions that whiteness has nothing to do with the untenable conditions that most black people are forced to live in. These are not inherent traits of being black, as many of you are fond of saying. These are the social consequences of a brutal colonial history and current globalisation — coupled with weak anti-the-poor leadership.

ER - I call on self-hating liberals to understand that poverty and unemployment are instilled in black peoples psychology. This can be found in their genetic 'laziness', their 'lack of ambition' (high unemployment levels) and 'stupidity' (average IQ of 70 = borderline retarded) which are all scientific proven facts which define the inherent and genetic traits of blacks. These are not social consequences of a brutal colonial history, or effects of globalisation, it's backed up by genetic and IQ studies which finds ALL sub-Saharan populations an average IQ of 70, with Pygmies at 58. This is the reality you refuse to accept.

GS - Oh and one more thing … asseblief white people, from well-meaning liberals to white supremacists — just stop telling everyone who is not white how to behave, what to think and when to say what. By trying to control the public agenda you are participating in your own imagined oppression and avoiding the possibility that we are all human and can co-exist very nicely.

ER - Oh, and one more thing ... assebelief self-hating white liberals, from well-meaning European-descended intelligentsia to white supremacists - just stop telling everyone who is white how to behave, what to think and when to say what. By trying to control the public agenda, you self-hating white liberals are participating in your own imagined oppression and avoiding the possibility that Whites all deserve a homeland and the right to self-determination, whereas multicultiralism is a failure as demonstrated in Europe.

GS - Be grateful that you are still welcome in a land that was stolen.

ER - Be grateful that undeserving black supremacists governments enjoy the fruits of the advanced labour and technology that they enjoy which the White conquerors brought and invented. Meanwhile, thousands of White Boers are being murdered through racially-motivated attacks as well as immense reports of rape and sexual assault. The land was not stolen, this is another lie advocated by self-hating liberals, it was founded and conquered. Blacks only moved into the area when Whites created a prosperous nation.

GS - And stop bitching and telling black people to get over their history.

ER - So stop bitching and telling white people to get over their scientific and cultural advancements, ones which modern day blacks all enjoy without lifting a hand or helping with.

Instead of defending your privileges by denying Whites their self-determination while nursing your White guilt through misguided outrage - why not get your own hands dirty while helping blacks to restore South Africa to the pre-Apartheid prosperous economy it once was. Oh wait, this wil not occur if the current institutionalised anti-white prejudice against whites continues.

Now, self-hating white liberals, try to reconsider the possibility of the healing potential of apologising collectively and genuinely for the wrong of your anti-white programme and its perpetration and advocation of tens of thousands of White Boer  murders that you've openly allowed and should take responsibility for.

White People will always fight for the universal right of self-determination and I will never stop pleading with self-hating white liberals to get over yourselves and get with the current programme of White Nationalism. It is an easy as the blink of an eye.

Yours sincerely, Euro Rabbit.


The response pretty much says all that needed to be said, and was an excellent example of how to expose the self hating whites among us.

Here is another link which gives you an insight into the mental instability of an individual so racked with false self guilt and genocidal self hate, that she actively encourages her own people to embrace their own annihilation and perpetuates the 'white privilege' myth. And not only that, she would advocate the same happening to whites everywhere. Maybe she should go and ask the families of the victims of murder at the hands of racist communist blacks about this mythical 'privilege.'

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/gillianschutte/2013/10/11/a-comprehensive-guide-to-white-privilege-in-south-africa-3/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

Police say rape in an Ashton-under-Lyne cemetery 'never happened'

The photograph of a completely innocent man was splattered across the June 24th edition of the Manchester Evening News (http://ow.ly/roK6l). It said police were looking for him in connection with an alleged rape.

Only the Manchester Evening News didn't act like it was just an allegation. The newspaper wrote the following:
The victim, a 24-year-old woman, was raped by a man as they walked through Hurst Cemetery off King’s Road on Saturday, June 22. She had previously met him a short time before the offence took place. The offender is described as white, about 34 years old, 5ft 8in tall, of medium to chubby build with short blonde hair. He had stubble on his face and a tattoo of a swallow on his left hand."
    . . . .
Detective Sergeant Gareth Jenkins, said: “The offender has subjected her to a serious and horrific sexual assault in an isolated cemetery, only stopping when disturbed by a passerby.  
"We have been supporting the victim, who is clearly distressed, as best as we can since this happened.'"
Sounds like both the police and the newspaper knew that a rape occurred, didn't it? Did the newspaper do its own independent investigation, or was it just acting as stenographer for the police?

The hapless "offender" turned himself in and was quickly arrested. He lived under a cloud of suspicion for months, until now. The police finally have determine it never happened (http://ow.ly/roK9W). Detective Constable Laura Orton said: “We are now confident that no crime has occurred . . . ."

Really, Detective Orton? No crime? What about false reporting of rape?

Does anyone really think this is the way things are "supposed" to work?

An innocent man is arrested and found himself under a cloud of suspicion for months based on nothing more than the word of the accuser, and the newspaper, and the police, act as if a rape had definitely occurred?

The Manchester Police and the Manchester Evening News can do their jobs without rushing to judgment, without convicting innocent men in the court of last resort, the court of public opinion.

They can treat allegations seriously without assuming the accuser was a "victim," that the accused was an "offender," and that "a serious and horrific sexual assault" definitely occurred before they know if it did.

The Manchester Evening News and the Manchester Police failed the public and unnecessary hurt an innocent man. And we haven't even talked about the architect of this injustice, the accuser. If there is a reasonable basis to believe she lied, she needs to be charged, convicted, and given a custodial sentence of significant length.


* * * * * * *

So basically, a White man was put in jail because 1 woman made up a lie and wrecked his life.

Monday, 2 December 2013

The Rise Of Heterophobia

A new psychological disorder called heterophobia is infecting America. Promoting a heterosexual or traditional family lifestyle is becoming increasingly shamed while criticism of homosexual lifestyle is no longer allowed. Our culture is making it clear that when it comes to sex, only heterosexuality can be ridiculed, especially when it is practiced by men.

I believe we’re only 10-15 years away from when homosexuality or bisexuality will be seen as a superior lifestyle to heterosexuality. We’re already at the stage where homosexual couples are seen as more virtuous than male players (mainstream media criticizes game incessantly, but no such effort has been done on homosexual couples).

Any lifestyle choice that involves men wanting to sleep with beautiful, thin women will be linked to misogyny and hate, while lifestyle choices involving men wanting to sleep with other men is seen as progressive and open-minded. Even the annual Thanksgiving Day Parade, an American family institution since 1927, is promoting a gay lifestyle by featuring singing and dancing homosexual men dressed up as women:




Heterophobia will be devastating on boys. Impressionable children will be bombarded with messages that guide them into adopting a lifestyle that has no genetic basis within them. And yes, I am saying that gayness is not 100% biological—there is absolutely an environmental component, as there is for all other human behavioral traits. A genetically straight man could be turned gay if raised in an environment that nurtures and encourages his slightest homosexual tendencies, which is what America is doing today. Gender re-education will ensure that even normal heterosexual boys will be softened. Masculinity and staunch heterosexuality will be seen as a nostalgic throwback, unsuitable for modern times.

Evidence of heterophobia can be found in the immense support network that gays can depend on. If you’re a gay boy and are teased in school, the administration will rush to action.

There are web sites and toll free numbers to call if you need help. Unless you live in a rural town, you won’t have to go far to receive compassionate support. But how about if you’re a teenage boy who wants to have sex? Tough luck, you privileged freak. You will be brainwashed that consensual sex is possibly rape and flirting is sexual harrasment.

They are telling boys now that you can’t touch a girl without her “permission.” The only support you got are guys like me, who are being put on hate lists. If you are growing up gay today, people trip over themselves to help you deal with your issues, but if you’re a straight boy, they’ll teach you harmful propaganda to prevent you from even getting laid.

The culture is being successfully changed so that deviant homosexual behavior is accepted and embraced.

I pity young males in America today. Unless they become gay and decide to sleep with truckloads of random men, they will be attacked for being masculine, using techniques to achieve heterosexual sex, and making even mild criticisms against women or homosexual culture.

They will fall prey to a system that wants to make them feel ashamed and privileged for being straight, and I’m afraid that as a result, many will succumb to this brainwashing and become—if not outright homosexual—unhappy beta males who have no idea how to pursue women without shame or guilt.

Source: http://www.rooshv.com/the-rise-of-heterophobia

* * * * * * *
What Roosh fails to mention is that things will get worse, but then they will be "normalized" (http://bit.ly/13afHEP). The gay agenda has a time limit; the moment it becomes useless, it will die out.

Sunday, 24 November 2013

Vice President Biden Acknowledges 'Immense' Jewish Role in American Mass Media and Cultural Life


By Mark Weber
July 2013

In a remarkable but under-reported address, Vice President Joe Biden recently acknowledged that the “immense” and “outsized” Jewish role in the US mass media and cultural life has been the single most important factor in shaping American attitudes over the past century, and in driving major cultural- political changes.

“Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," Biden told a gathering of Jewish leaders on May 21, 2013, in Washington, DC. “The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage,” he added.

“Think - behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those [social-political] changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said. “We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions” of individual Jews, Biden went on, but it's more profound than that “because the values, the values are so deep and so engrained in American culture, in our Constitution.”

Biden speaks with the awareness and perspective of a seasoned Washington insider. He was a US Senator for 26 years, held important posts in Congress, and was twice a US presidential candidate. Few men have been more deeply involved in national politics, or are more intimately familiar with the realities of power in American public life.

Biden went on to speak of the crucial role played by Jews in the evolution of American jurisprudence, and in that regard mentioned seven Supreme Court justices: Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan. “You can't talk about the recognition of ... rights in the Constitution without looking at these incredible jurists that we've had.”

Biden might also have mentioned that of the nine current US Supreme Court justices, three are Jewish, and that Jews are vastly overrepresented in other high-level federal, state and city government posts. He could have mentioned that the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and the mayors of America's three most populous cities – New York, Los Angeles and Chicago – are Jewish.

“The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita,” Biden also said. More specifically, he cited the Jewish role in shaping popular attitudes and in setting policies on race relations, the role of women in society, and “gay rights.” He went on: “You can't talk about the civil rights movement in this country without talking about Jewish freedom riders and Jack Greenberg ... You can't talk about the women's movement without talking about Betty Friedan.” Biden also praised the Jewish community's “embrace of immigration.”

“I believe what affects the [social-political] movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” said Biden. “It wasn't anything we [politicians] legislatively did,” he went on. “It was [such television shows as] ‘Will and Grace,' it was the social media. Literally. That's what changed peoples' attitudes. That's why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace, and rapidly embrace” same-sex marriage.

Although Jewish clout has been an important fact of American life for decades, this reality is rarely acknowledged openly, especially by a prominent non-Jewish American of Biden's stature. In a society that supposedly strives for “diversity,” “affirmative action” equality, and fairness, the fact that an ethnic-religious group that makes up no more than two percent of the overall population wields greatly disproportionate power and influence is, or should be, a source of embarrassment. Perhaps that explains why Biden's unusually frank remarks received only scant press coverage, and prompted almost no commentary in the mainstream media.

For some Jews, the Vice President's bold statements were actually worrisome. One prominent Jewish journalist wrote that, however gratifying Biden's “very philo-Semitic” remarks might be, such an open acknowledgment of Jewish influence is “wandering into highly uncomfortable terrain.” The Vice President went too far, cautioned Jonathan Chait, especially given that “lots of people” are not at all happy about how “Jews have used their influence over popular culture to change societal attitudes toward homosexuality.”

As Biden mentioned, the Jewish role in shaping attitudes is by no means a recent phenomenon. It was noted, for example, in 1968 by Walter Kerr, a renowned author, director and Pulitzer prize-winning drama critic. Writing in The New York Times, he remarked: “What has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as anything else ... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to. After the entertainers and novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders; they form ways of seeing.”

“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture,” wrote Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic, in 1996. “Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie stu­dios,” he said, “will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” /4 Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in 2008: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood ... I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”

While Biden praised the Jewish role in the mass media and popular culture as “all to the good,” some prominent Americans have not been pleased. President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham, the nation's best-known Christian evangelist, spoke together frankly about the Jewish grip on the media during a private White House meeting in 1972. Their secretly recorded one-on-one conversation was not made public until 30 years later. During their talk, Graham said: "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain." The President responded by saying: "You believe that?" Graham replied: "Yes, sir." And Nixon said: "Oh, boy. So do I. I can't ever [publicly] say that, but I believe it."

In the United States, as in every modern society, those who control the mainstream media, and especially motion pictures and television, guide and shape how people, and especially the most socially attuned and culturally fashionable, think about major issues. The mass media, including popular entertainment, sets the limits on “permissible” discussion of important issues, and thereby steers the general direction of public policy. Views and ideas that those who control the media do not approve are vilified as “offensive,” “hateful,” and “divisive,” and are eliminated from “acceptable” public consideration, while anyone who dares to express such views is maligned as bigoted, backward and intolerant.

An important result of the Jewish hold on the US mass media is a broadly pro-Israel slant in the presentation of news, current affairs and history – a bias that is apparent to anyone who carefully compares news coverage of Israel and the Israel-Palestine conflict in the US media with coverage in Europe, Asia or Latin America.

Another noteworthy expression of the Jewish role in the media has been a routinely sympathetic portrayal of Jews as victims, with much emphasis on the “Holocaust” and “Holocaust remembrance,” thereby encouraging strong and emotional support of Israel.

With special attentiveness to Jewish concerns and fears, the American media highlights real and supposed dangers to Israel and Jews around the world. Moreover, Israel's adversaries are routinely portrayed as America's enemies, thereby encouraging US wars against countries that Israel regards as dangerous.

Another important consequence of the Jewish hold on the mass media and cultural life has been – as Vice President Biden suggested – a broad decades-long promotion of cultural-racial “diversity” and “pluralism.” Jewish-Zionist leaders regard maximum “tolerance” and “diversity” in the US and other non-Jewish societies as beneficial to Jewish community interests. /9 “America's pluralistic society is at the heart of Jewish security,” says Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League – a leading Jewish-Zionist organization. “In the long run,” he continues, “what has made American Jewish life a uniquely positive experience in Diaspora history and which has enabled us to be such important allies for the State of Israel, is the health of a pluralistic, tolerant and inclusive American society.”

American motion pictures and television, in collaboration with influential Jewish-Zionist organizations, have for many years sought to persuade Americans – especially younger Americans – to welcome and embrace ever more social, cultural and racial “diversity,” and to regard themselves simply as individuals. While striving to belittle and break down racial, religious, ethnic and cultural identity and cohesion among non-Jewish Americans, the US media promotes a tribalistic nationalism (Zionism) for Jews, and defends Israel as a proudly Jewish ethnic-religious state.

Without an understanding of the Jewish role in the American mass media and US cultural life, major social-political trends over the past century are all but incomprehensible. Vice President Biden's frank acknowledgement of this “immense” clout is a welcome contribution to a greater awareness of this important reality of American life.


Source: http://www.ihr.org/other/biden_jewish_role

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...