Tuesday, 30 September 2014
I have a few observations to make about this article. I'll start off by saying that incest should continue to be illegal and that this group pursuing the decriminalisation of it, are typical of the cultural marxist 'sexual liberation' brigade who would probably also support lowering the age of consent.
Apart from the obvious health issues that come with children born in an incestuous relationship, it is morally wrong for society to even consider sex between siblings as acceptable or normal. It is a continuation down the slippery slope which began with the Frankfurt School strategy of normalising all kinds of sexual behaviour in order to break down Western society and morality.
What I find hypocritical about, is when it says:
'The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.'
It isn't the content in relation to the story I find hypocritical, it is the fact that the same truth is not stated in relation to children forced into same sex households to be raised by homosexuals.
Do the courts not have a duty to protect children from the consequences of a homosexual relationship? Do they not have a duty to the children who are forced into these situations to satisfy an ideological agenda? Do they not have a duty to protect the rights of a child to have both a mother and father figure raise them?
Yes people can say that not all children are raised in a mother father household and many are rasied by single parents. That doesn't justify the forcing of children into an environment that they have no choice or say in. It is the state who decides for them and in the process turns these children into ideological trophies of the militant homosexual agenda.
If it isn't right for children to be raised in an incestuous household, then surely it isn't right for them to be raised in a homosexual household either.
A spokesperson for the ruling Christian Democrats in Germany said:
“Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.”
These same people hypocritically support children being forced into adoptive homosexual households. The protection of undisturbed development for children should also be applied to the militant homosexual agenda and their targeting of children for indoctrination and homosexual adoption.
Saturday, 27 September 2014
[Ginsberg] That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.
[Tablet] Is that what I’m saying? I actually think that American Jews are in this sense way too quick to label such feelings as anti-Semitism, even when the effects may be anti-Semitic.
[Ginsberg] I think you’ve characterized it very well. It’s not 1930s anti-Semitism, but it’s a resentment. It’s a resentment of a particular evil that the Jews have done, which is the Jews have undermined WASP America but refuse to do the same thing in their own country.
You know, there’s an old joke: Three elderly Jewish Communists in the Bronx are talking. They’re in their eighties. One is in a wheelchair. So they say, “Abie Cohen, have you heard from him lately?” “Abie, he’s had some health problems but he’s living in Los Angeles in a nursing home, still working for socialism.” “All right, what about Mike Abramowitz, have you heard from him?” “Well, you know Mike is in rehab, he fell, he broke his hip, a lot of problems. But even in the nursing home he’s fighting for socialism!” So someone says, “What about Moe Goldberg?” “Oh, Moe, he moved to Israel, didn’t you know that?” “Well, is he fighting for socialism?” The guy answers, “In his own country? What kind of man do you think he is?!”
So I think as Jewish humor often does, that captures the point that you made. I’ve actually had students say exactly this. They say, “How come in my high school we couldn’t sing Christmas carols; however, in Israel they can establish a religion?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.
“How come in my high school Whites are a minority in the same school that was all-White when my parents attended. However, in Israel they can enact immigration laws that keep out non-Jews?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.
Sunday, 21 September 2014
This is what lies beneath the mindset of your average Jewish Cultural Marxist. Not only is he obviously mentally unstable, he or it was parroting all of the usual cultural marxist garbage. The reason Jews have been behind communism and cultural marxism is because of a hatred of Christianity and Europeans who have in the past sussed the Jews out and removed them from society because of their subversive and destructive nature.
Friday, 19 September 2014
One for our German friends which also applies to people across Europe. It shows us that Jews without doubt, support ethnic and cultural pluralism across Europe and have, as Barbara Spectre said, 'played a leading role' in making Europe multiracial. This has been done specifically for Jewish ethnic interests as you can see in the following statement by the ADL. They refer to the 'Holocaust' as justification for the destruction of German ethnic and cultural identity and also use the same 'reasoning' for the rest of Europe. In America they say that European Americans are also to blame for the 'Holocaust' because of their restrictive immigration policies which allowed only immigration from Western Europe. This was the excuse behind the drive for the opening of Americas borders in 1965, and the America you see today.
ADL press release May 28th 1999:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today lauded the passage of sweeping changes in Germany's immigration law, saying the easing of the nations once rigorous naturalisation requirements "will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance. It is encouraging to see pluralism taking root in a society that, despite its strong democracy, had for decades maintained an unyielding policy of citizenship by blood or descent only," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director. "The easing of immigration requirements is especially significant in light of Germany's history of the Holocaust and persecution of Jews and other minority groups. The new law will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance in a nation with an onerous legacy of xenophobia, where the concept of 'us versus them' will be replaced by a principle of citizenship for all."
The ADL, like Barbara Spectre, has no place dictating to European people what they think European nations should be.
These same people oppose any form of non-Jewish immigration into Israel and do everything possible to ensure Israel remains an 'exclusively Jewish state.' In, European nations, they support the exact opposite and don't believe that Europeans have the right to want Europe to remain European.
The likes of the ADL and their fellow travellers, are a hostile fifth columns destroying us from within.
Friday, 12 September 2014
The Cultural Marxists are well schooled in the Alinskyite tactics outlined in Rules for Radicals. They will try and mock you, isolate you, and repeat the same slogans and words repeatedly. To counter the mentally unstable ethno-masochists you simply have to point out the contradictions in their arguments. The leftist argument is based on falsehood, expose it with facts and their argument will fall apart.
One of the main leftist arguments in Britain is that 'we are a nation of immigrants.'
Here is an excellent counter argument that people can use to deconstruct and expose the leftist argument for what it is.
WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS
WRONG: Recent gene surveys found that even in England, if you can trace your family back to being here pre-1950, your genetic make up is likely to be an average of 75% post ice age settler. In other words we are related to the people who came here first after the last great ice age. Indeed in Somerset the DNA of 'Cheddar man' was tested and it was found he was related to several people in the local area and one man nearby was directly related to him.
YES BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ANGLO-SAXONS, VIKINGS AND NORMANS?
The DNA survey has found that they do not account for more than 5% of our genetic make up. We have another 10% Germannic but that is over 10k years old so is a long way pre 'dark age' and probably from the time when the continent was linked to the UK and before the channel flooded.
SO YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE AT LEAST PARTLY 'IMMIGRANTS'.ANSWER
NO. Listen to yourself. You are so desperate to suggest that we are a nation of immigrants that you are saying that we are immigrants because (wait for it)... white Europeans 'immigrated' to... White Europe! Added to that, the English are a mix of Viking, Anglo-Saxon, 'Celt' and Norman. All white Europeans. The nation of England was not formed until the Viking and Anglo-Saxon invasions were complete. So the English cannot be immigrants as you cannot 'immigrate' to a country that does not yet exist. Same for the 'British'. The Acts of Union were not passed until 1800 and 1801, so again, the British cannot 'immigrate' to a country that does not yet exist. Anybody who had family here before that cannot be an immigrant.
BUT EVERYONE CAME FROM AFRICAANSWER
WRONG. That theory died a death with the advent of DNA testing. We now know that white Cuacasians and Cinasians originated in the Caucasus. Africans contain completely different DNA from as yet unknown hominids. They originated in West Africa. We are so genetically different that in any other life form we would be considered a separate species.
BUT SURELY WE ARE ALL THE SAME?
WRONG. We are very different. And forgive me for mentioning, but don't you keep telling us we should celebrate 'diversity'? Now you are saying it does not exist! Nature favours diversity. It created races for a reason. The planned execution of racial mixing is an unnatural process. I am the champion of diversity. You want to destroy it.
THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE, THE HUMAN RACE.
WRONG. Any geneticist or biologist will tell you, humans are a species (maybe more than one) and certainly not a race.
BUT WE BELIEVE IN 'EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY'.
Good. Explain why it is then that 'equality' means we are all the same, but 'diversity' means we are all different. 'Equality and diversity' is an oxymoron. You can have one OR the other. The two cannot exist together. When you chant your slogans, do you not think about what your are chanting?
BUT THE VIKINGS AND ANGLO-SAXONS PROVE THAT IMMIGRATION IS NORMAL(He is trying to avoid dealing with the last VERY embarrassing point)
WRONG. The Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Normans were certainly not immigrants. Firstly we have already established that to be the case. Their culture and genetic make up was almost identical to the host population. So much so that they integrated immediately. Vikings and Anglo-Saxons even spoke the same (dialectically different) language. Vikings, Anglo Saxons and Normans were all recently historically related. Vikings were Anglo-Saxons that migrated north before crossing the North Sea. Normans were Vikings that then migrated to France before crossing the channel. Secondly, another reason they were not immigrants is that they were 'invaders' and openly acknowledged themselves as such. They did not come in, demand passports and get paid benefits. Immigration is not normal at all. Thirdly, as already established, Europeans do not 'immigrate' to Europe. Fourthly, immigration is not normal and has never been accepted as such. An example of this is QE1's 'Expulsion of the Blackamore's' Order. Yes in the Elizabethan period it was found that there may be 'some' (as many as ten!) 'Blackamore's' (non white) people in the country. This caused alarm and the order was made for all to be expelled. Also have a quick read of Magna Carta. See what it says about foreigners.
BUT SURELY WITHOUT IMMIGRATION WE WILL ALL BECOME INBRED?
WRONG. Britain's biggest cause of inbreeding birth defects is the immigrant population. Many immigrant communities carry out first cousin marriages. Island populations such as the UK, Japan and Iceland are classic examples of how island communities advance faster than those exposed to greater population movement. Iceland, Japan and the indigenous Britons before 1950 had the lowest birth defects per head of population in the world. The reason being that a population that marries between six and eighteen stations of it's own immediate family actually produces less birth defects as it has the most compatible genes. Another example is the very high rate of birth defects in mixed race marriages. And it is also interesting that you are attempting to justify racial policies on the basis of eugenics. Aren't you meant to be against eugenics?
BUT LOOK AT THE BENEFITS. CURRY AND RAP MUSIC!
WOW.... Curry and Rap music. So even if you like either of both, are you suggesting that you have to import 6 million people in the space of a decade in order to get these 'benefits'! So we can get the same 'benefits' if we import a cookbook and some CDs? Rather than a programme of mass immigration costing the taxpayer billions a year we could have asked a couple of holidaymakers to bring back a souvenir each. Using your flawed logic it would mean that we would not have been able to object to the German invasion in 1940 if people had realised we like lager and the occasional sausage....
BUT WE ALL CAME FROM SOMEWHERE.
YOU ARE RIGHT. All life came from the sea. Are you seriously suggesting that we should mate with fish? Perhaps you would like to adopt a shrimp, give it social housing and and pay it some benefits? Then indoctrinate your children about how they should feel guilty about the way aqua bottom feeders are only that way because of the 'racism' of the evil 'white' people.
Wednesday, 10 September 2014
Progressivism is a leftist thought process implemented into society via media, academia, politics and entertainment. It desires a world with no white European people, no traditional families, no religion, no pride, and no identity. It promotes degeneracy, immorality, ugliness, miscegenation, false history and self loathing. Progressivism is societal rot, it eats away at the foundations of a civilisation until it falls in on itself. What is left is the decayed remnants of a once great civilisation, the one time envy of the world and eternal enemy of the progressives.
Progressivism thrives off certain traits unique to the European that work against the best interests of the European. Those traits being empathy and altruism. It promotes out group empathy and out group altruism, and attacks those who practice in group empathy and in group altruism.
An example of this would be the concept that 'charity begins at home.' This basically means that you look after your own first and foremost, but progressivism would call this 'racist' and 'discriminatory.' They believe that charity is for all even if it is damaging to the person or nation being charitable. The empathetic and altruistic nature of the European is manipulated in this scenario, they will part with their money to feed the third world, and will support the foreign aid budget sent to the third world, but have no idea about their own nations needy.
They will naively support immigration from the third world believing that third world people are merely seeking a better life, yet they ignore the consequences for themselves and their own people in the long term. They fall victim to the steering of their emotions by mass media and the progressive agenda. Empathy and Altruism are emotions based on concern and sympathy for others, that is why the progressive left appeal to emotion and rarely use logic based in reality.
'Progress' basically means moving forward, advancing, onward. In relation to society, 'progress' supposedly means moving society forward, advancing society, or moving society onward. The question has to be therefore, progress to what exactly?
The answer to this question is all around you, the 'progress' they seek is not to advance society or Western civilisation as a whole, it is to deconstruct it. To the progessives, Western civilisation is the enemy, they don't want to advance us they want to destroy us. Can anybody who is not a brainwashed drone say hand on heart that society is better today?
Progressivism is a false term when applied to what progressives say advances society, this is intentional. For them to deconstruct and destroy Western Civilisation they needed to give it a positive term, and 'progress' is that term. When somebody thinks of the word progress, they think of a positive rather than a negative and this is capitalised on by the progressives.
Strip away the layers surrounding 'progressivism' and you will find Cultural Marxism, an ideology hell bent on the collapse of Western Civilisation. Progressivism is a lie based on hatred, there is nothing positive about it and nothing that benefits us as a society, people or culture by falling for the agenda. The hatred of the progressives is directed at the West and the European people, our culture and traditionalism.
Anybody opposing the anti-Western progressive agenda will be subject to the Alinskyite tactics outlined in 'Rules for Radicals,' these are tactics that are used to advance the agenda. It can also be called repressive tolerance which is the brainchild of Herbert Marcuse. In practice it means the toleration of all ideas and views that are in line with the anti-Western narrative, and intolerance for all ideas and views that oppose them.
A good explanation of progressivism is the following:
'Starting in the 1960s, academics took heightened interest in Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci's cultural Marxism. Members of the political class glommed onto the resulting "social justice," affirmative action, "diversity," multiculturalism, political correctness, and other malignancies spawned by cultural Marxism. Progressive politicians came to view society as a hodge-podge of racial, ethnic, gender-based, and now also sexual orientation-based groups locked in zero-sum combat with Western whites.
'Generally speaking, cultural Marxism's indoctrinees have learned to view morality and knowledge as "constructs" and social and economic power as commodities to be transferred from "oppressor" to "oppressed." Progressives routinely label minorities as oppressed and anything that benefits minorities as moral.' - Chuck
Some examples of the Cultural Marxist Progressivism agenda.
This is one tenet of progressivism. They say that having a multiracial society is 'progress' and that 'diversity is our strength.' Progressives want a 'post-racial' society devoid of racial identity. They promote and support mass immigration and miscegenation and desire the day when white Europeans are a minority in once White European homelands. Can anybody who is not an anti-white see how this can possibly be called progress? When you are able to think freely and evaluate the facts, you will see that progressivism is an anti white European agenda. It isn't about progressing the white European people, it is about destroying them.
Proof of this is seen in the demographic predictions by expert demographers that European nations including Britain, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and others, will be minority European this century. We are anti-European Union and anti EU migration, we fully recognise the problems it brings, however the main issue is the tens upon tens of millions of non-Europeans who have been brought to Europe. This is the primary reason European nations will soon become minority European.
So called modern art and architecture is the result of the hatred of classical Western art and architecture. The progressives produce and promote ugliness in every way possible, it is all about removing the individual away from his cultural heritage. By producing modernist art and architecture they replace the historical Western character of our culture, with so called 'modern' and 'progressive' monstrosities. The progressives want to move past the historical character of our culture because they hate it, not because they want to advance it. They do this not only by attacking the culture in academia, but also by replacing the cultural expression of the West which was once a prominent feature of our culture.
This tenet of progressivism has resulted in a culture of degeneracy promoted by the entertainment industry, porn industry and media. The sexualisation of our culture has led to a decline in family values and has stigmatised the pursuit of creating a traditional family environment which includes man woman and child. Cultural Marxists thought that if you could free people from what they called 'sexual oppression' then you could start the process of deconstructing the West.
The process was started by the pseudo-scientist Sigmund Freud who tried to suggest that sexual oppression was the cause of unhappiness. The sexual revolution, a term coined by Wilhelm Reich, became the manifestation of what Freud had created. The progressives say that 'sexual liberation' is freedom from Western morality and religious indoctrination.
Eros and civilisation, written by Herbert Marcuse created an environment in the 60s of 'free love' among the baby boomers or counterculture movement. The book is about how the oppression of human sexual instinct is geared towards social control. In a nutshell it suggests that the freedom of sexual desire and the pleasure principle is a means of human liberation from civilisation, ie Western Civilisation which they see a being the capitalist West. The progressives see the family as being part of the capitalist conspiracy to control people and therefore it must be deconstructed.
Homosexuality is part of the 'sexual liberation' agenda, however it is also a different kind of strategy. The goal behind the normalising and promotion of homosexuality is to corrupt and distort the natural realities behind the reasons for sex. Sex is primarily about reproduction, the continuation of the species. Without heterosexuality then the species would die out within a generation. Homosexuality and the homosexual agenda is one of the main progessive agendas. They deny at every turn the real reasons behind it and its ultimate goals, and use that term 'progress' to brainwash people into believing that support for, and promotion of 'gay rights' is good for society.
They say that homosexuality is normal and that it is nobody's business what two adults get up to. They say 'love is love' and that we should all tolerate it. Anybody who doesn't, and who doesn't conform to the agenda is an 'Intolerant homophobic bigot.' They want children forced into same-sex households to be raised by homosexuals and believe that children should be indoctrinated from the earliest age possible to support the gay agenda. Children are the primary target of the homosexual agenda, as the new generation they are viewed as pivotal in the 'normalisation' process.
Another main strategy of the homosexual agenda is to legalise 'same-sex marriage.' This is an assault on Western Culture which was once largely based on Christian teachings and values which does not allow same-sex marriage or accept homosexuality as a normal or acceptable practice in the eyes of God. It is not about 'equality in marriage' it is about targeting one of the foundations of the West in order to destroy it. In order for the homosexual agenda to 'progress' therefore, means a concerted attack upon the religious opposition to it.
Another reason for the promotion of the homosexual agenda, is because the progressives believe that there is no absolute truth or moral standard, no moral absolutism. Anything goes as far as the progressive is concerned, anything that advances the ongoing assault on the West. They will say that nothing is absolute, and therefore we 'shouldn't judge.' Yes the people who scream 'who are you to judge' are the most judgemental people you could ever have the misfortune to meet.
An example of moral relativism would be any practice that we in the West consider barbaric such as Female Genital Mutilation, the moral relativist would say that the practice is a moral practice within a certain culture, and therefore we shouldn't judge.
The educational institutions push moral relativism onto the young and impressionable, telling them that all beliefs and lifestyles are moral and therefore valid, except beliefs that run counter to the narrative of the agenda however. This means that parents are losing the fight to be the moral educators of their children. The progressives believe that in order to create a 'truly egalitarian and equal society,' that education should teach (indoctrinate) children with homosexual propaganda.
Homosexuality is also opposed on the basis of the natural requirement and natural intention for man and woman to procreate. The progressive will say that 'homosexuality can be found in nature,' but that wouldn't make it normal or natural. In nature, things have a design and purpose, and the design and purpose of the male and female is to procreate. Attraction and sexual chemistry between male and female therefore is the normal and natural requirement for procreation. Anything else is abnormal and unnatural. Any examples of so called 'homosexuality in nature' are merely an act of dominance and not a normal natural sexual act.
Progressives believe that an extreme minority in society who engage in this type of behaviour, should be empowered to dictate to the overwhelming heterosexual majority, who they consider to be a 'bigoted majority.'
The term 'homophobia' was created by George Weinberg, it has become one the main Cultural Marxist buzzwords and along with 'racist' has caused untold damage. 'Homophobia' suggests a fear of homosexuals and what they say is an illogical heterosexual reaction to them. I would call 'homophobia' a natural feeling of utter revulsion for an unnatural behaviour.
Eradication of the Nuclear Family
Progressives see the family as an oppressive unit that pushes racism, sexism, homophobia and fascism onto children. They say that the family is patriarchal, authorative and hierarchical. They believe that after the eradication of the family, they can fill children with the ideas of 'equality' and 'egalitarianism.' The methods in which they set out to destroy the family are to promote homosexuality, feminism, sexual liberation and a reliance on the state. The role of the father has also been under attack, cut the father out of the family unit and the job is already half done. The family is labeled as a 'generational chain of oppression.'
Progressives believe that there should be no national borders anywhere, they believe in the full and absolute freedom of movement for all people of the world. This in reality means no borders in nations that are majority white European. The desire of the non-European people to come to Europe is vastly greater than the reverse. This belief in no borders is in line with the Communist 'world without borders' mantra.
Progressivism is a racist anti-white school of brainwashed thought and hatred. It is the rejection of reality and the rejection of the natural order of things. It wishes to create a society of anarchy that acts as a corrosive force against the West.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
The Word "Hate"
Excerpted from “The Morality of Hatred” by Peter Anthony.
In an age where perception equals reality, the enemies of our race have thrived on their portrayal of our cause as one of “hate” and “intolerance” for far too long.
Knowing the natural propensity of humans to gravitate toward the positive rather than the negative, our enemies, in this topsy-turvy world, have succeeded in calling the good bad and the bad good, and have achieved a monumental propaganda victory by getting the vast majority of the public to believe it.
By simply stepping forward (through their control of the media, churches, and other outlets) and declaring what is moral and what is immoral for all the world to hear, they have seized the moral high-ground on all societal issues, especially those dealing with race and culture; consequentially all those who wish to be moral will seek to obey what has been dictated from on high, not knowing or suspecting that the source of that information could be flawed or motivated by something other than goodwill.
Unfortunately, most people have not developed the adequate hindsight necessary to understand how today’s morality has changed from that of history; that indeed most of the famous people of history, from Plato to Thomas Jefferson, would be considered far from moral by today’s societal standards.
There can be no greater morality than that of the survival of the white race, and yet this is the first age where those who espouse this viewpoint are widely viewed as evil and immoral haters.
The white race, more than any other, historically have been the creators, the developers, and the sustainers of civilization, of culture as we knew it when, across Europe, vast cathedrals pierced the sky over great cities where white men and women carried out the struggle of their daily lives by striving to make them better through innovation, invention, and plain hard work.
In short they built a world, from the ground up, using nothing but their minds and their work hardened hands. They spread from sea to sea, then across the sea and back again. When Magellan circled the earth and Cortés conquered the Aztecs with a handful against thousands, while Gutenberg was inventing movable type so the Bible could be read by millions others were ensconced in the same primitive, aboriginal state of life which existed thousands of years before.
The truth is not hatred, but the truth. In an age when chivalry was the norm, when behemoth castles dotted beautiful countrysides brimming with bountiful harvest, nothing was more sacred than honor, nothing more priceless than to be counted among the Godly. Today, we have lost our very souls. Today we are shadows of the men we once were. Instead of going West, we go to the nearest Blockbuster and watch a movie about it starring some Jew.
Am I called a hater for loving my family more than the family of another? If I prefer my wife over another, does this mean I hate all other women? And yet this is the logic our enemies often use when they accuse us of hatred for loving or preferring our racial family more than another.
The enemy has taken this noblest of all ideals, that of the preservation of God’s creation, and turned it into something twisted and evil. They have taken what is perfectly natural and right, the innate propensity of people to prefer their racial kindred, and called it “hatred” and “bigotry.”
There is nothing wrong with hatred, if properly placed, but on the whole our movement is not and never has been about hatred. It is about building a new society based on the natural and historic order of things.
(Excerpt from "Disgrace Abounding"(1939)
Not anti-Semitism but anti-Gentilism came first. You have heard a lot in recent years about Hitler's Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, with their ban on intermarriage, which the Germans call race-defilement.
A most intelligent and cultured and open-minded Jew in Budapest said to me, 'After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles'.
Race-antagonism began, not with the Gentiles, but with the Jews. Their religion is based on it. This racial lunacy which you detest in the Germans has possessed the Jews for thousands of years. When they become powerful, they practise it; as they consolidate their position in one trade after another, in one profession or another, the squeeze-out of Gentiles begins. That was why you found, in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Bucharest, newspapers with hardly a Gentile on the editorial staff, theatres owned and managed by Jews presenting Jewish actors and actresses in Jewish plays praised by the Jewish critics of Jewish newspapers, whole streets with hardly a non-Jewish shop in them, whole branches of retail trade monopolized by Jews.
Jews, if you know them well enough and understand these things enough for them to talk openly with you, will admit this. They cannot deny it.
In the beginning was anti-Gentilism. This, not the perfidy of the Gentiles, prevents the assimilation of the Jews. This prevents them from ever becoming Germans or Poles or Italians. This keeps them welded together as alien communities in foreign lands, communities ultimately hostile to the Gentile.
It is their religion? Good, but it is the reason why they cannot be assimilated.
In the defeated countries, the Jews did not use the great power they achieved to promote and accelerate assimilation. They used it to increase the power and wealth of the Jews, and their intensive mutual collaboration, in that era to oust non-Jews from professions, trades and callings, was the outward and visible sign that anti-Gentilism remained within them.
The race barriers that had existed against the Jews were broken down, every path was open; but the race-barrier within themselves still existed, and thus you had the misuse of this freedom and those grave signs of its abuse, the exploitation of cheap labour and of young non-Jewish womanhood, which were so repugnant a feature of life in Berlin and Vienna, and still are seen to-day, as I write, in Budapest and Prague.
These are grave things, which need to be understood.
The inner knowledge of this seemingly unbridgeable gulf causes many Jews to take on protective coloring, to change their names, to outdo their Gentile neighbours in vocal patriotism, to obscure the fact that they are Jews. Some, a few, marry Gentiles; to the main body of Jews they are renegades who have 'married outside the faith'. Some, a few, have themselves baptized; but they remain Jews.....
No Jew ever mistakes the man he is dealing with. He knows at once whether the other man is a Jew or a Gentile; it is the first question he asks himself.
How many Gentiles know when they have to do with a Jew? How often have you heard, 'Is he really a Jew? The thought never occurred to me. He doesn't look like one'.
The feeling towards Gentiles that is given the Jew when he comes into the world and is fostered in him within his family circle, is that the Gentiles are people, more stupid than the Jews, who can be used to bring profit and advantage to the Jews.
It is a fundamentally hostile attitude, the strength of which is that the Gentiles, by and large, do not realize its existence. All the means of protective colouring are used to further it. Outside that family circle, the Jew is a matey, hail-fellow-well-met brother citizen. That is not in his heart, nor in his eyes, if you look into them.
You are a man against whom he has to pit his wits, to outdo his potential enemy. The basis of it lies in his religion. It is all very good if both sides realize what is afoot. But it makes assimilation impossible.
ASSIMILATION VERSUS EMIGRATION
There are two bitterly antagonistic schools of Jewish thought. One is for assimilation, for ignoring that unbridgeable gulf fixed by the Jewish faith, for settling in the midst of the Christian communities and the various nations, and taking on their forms of life and characteristics.
If you have a young and sturdy race and set a low limit on the number of the Jews, this works fairly well - as for instance, in Serbia. The Serbs were too virile for the Jews to reach disproportionate influence among them - and there were not many Jews. But when a new influx of Jews begins, under the influence of wars or an anti-Semitic movement elsewhere, the trouble starts.
The other Jewish school of thought is for boldly accepting the truth, that Jews are Jews and unassimilable, for setting up a National Jewish state somewhere of which all Jews should be subjects. It is, in my view, the solution and ought at all cost to be done.
Then the native citizen of other countries would know with whom he had to deal and what motives he might expect in that citizen of a foreign state. It would put an end to the Jew who constantly steps across the frontiers and repeatedly changes his language, his nationality, and his professed allegiance, who is a German to-day, an Austrian to-morrow, a Hungarian the day after, and next week an Englishman, who claims a privileged place in the world that is open to no other race or faith, who, in the name of love for that particular country in which he happens at the moment to be, works bee-like for war against the anti-Semitic state that he has left.
Here you have the ruling idea of the dummer Christian again, the stupid Gentile who can be egged on to fight the other Gentiles in order to exterminate anti-Semitism. Organized international Jewry ought, in the name of dignity alone, to put a stop to this. Protest and fight against anti-Semitism as much as you like, but do not expect the nations to go to war about it.
We at Smash Cultural Marxism do not endorse the beliefs of Douglas Reed in regards to National Socialism.
It is a frequently misunderstood notion that “modern” and “abstract” art was an organic development that arose from grassroots battles against “oppression” and the “folk art” of the lower classes. In fact, ugly, degenerate art arose from Soviet and communist circles as a means to attack aesthetic beauty. I often remark that “Bauhaus” architecture is communist to the surprise of listeners, but the facts are, “modern art” is almost wholly a communist and Soviet invention of weaponized culture.
To understand this, one must look at the Frankfurt School of Marxism, tasked primarily with social engineering and destroying culture. Weaponized culture was a key tool for destroying the West’s social values and social structure. This is also true of the modern transformations of “art” into its own internal nihilist critique of meaning itself, with hipsterism. Hipsterism could accurately be called the full blossoming of Theodore Adorno’s critical theory, particularly in terms of music. Adorno writes:
What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man. The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks. Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked.”
So modern music is geared towards the breakdown of order, beauty, form and meaning, waging a war on all the elements with the intent of disorienting man’s psyche and breaking down his worldview. In fact Adorno describes it as an attempt at actually causing mania:
It is not that schizophrenia is directly expressed therein; but the music imprints upon itself an attitude similar to that of the mentally ill. The individual brings about his own disintegration. He imagines the fulfillment of the promise through magic, but nonetheless within the realm of immediate actuality. Its concern is to dominate schizophrenic traits through the aesthetic consciousness. In so doing, it would hope to vindicate insanity as true health.”
Analysts Meyer and Steinberg comment: Adorno itemized these: 1. depersonalization, the loss of connection to one’s own body; 2. hebephrenia, which he defined as “the indifference of the sick individual towards the external”; 3. catatonia (“a similar behavior is familiar in patients who have been overwhelmed by shock”); and 4. necrophilia. Adorno declared, “Universal necrophilia is the last perversity of style.”
Adorno had been “recruited” if you will by the West, to wage war through cultural Marxism on a global scale. Meyer and Steinberg comment:
A promising future concert pianist in his youth, he had later studied in Vienna under the atonal composer Arnold Schoenberg. In 1946, while in the United States, working on the Frankfurt School’s “Cultural Pessimism” agenda, the former Soviet Comintern (Communist International) asset, now living on the largesse of the Rockefeller Foundations and other Anglo-American fondi, wrote an infamous book, The Philosophy of Modern Music, a barely intelligible diatribe against Classical culture.”
The Rockefeller Foundation promoted modern art globally, utilizing western intelligence to spread the death that is abstract art.
The London Independent states:
“The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy’s hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.
The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover’s FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.”
To pursue its underground interest in America’s lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. “Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes,” Mr Jameson explained, “so that there wouldn’t be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn’t have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps.”
This was the “long leash”. The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its “fellow travellers” in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.”
That ugly art was all a CIA tool is not really correct. Most of the hideous artists were Marxists. Take Pablo Picasso, for example. Possibly the most famous modern artist, Picasso’s crap is nothing but the painted expression of Marxism. Picasso notably proclaimed his Marxism and considered his art the purest expression of Marxism. One can clearly see the train of sewer from Marxism and Frankfurt school necrophilia to modern garbage and postmodern hipster meaninglessness. Little do these hipsters understand that their “philosophy” is nothing else than an engineered social tool for morons, with the end being the destruction of those morons.
Friday, 5 September 2014
Common Purpose Communist Corruption:
What is Common Purpose?
On the surface, Common Purpose is an educational charity which does leadership and networking development training. In reality, Common Purpose or, more properly, Communist Purpose, is a corrupt, subversive, secretive and sinister organisation which seeks to destroy the national identity of Britain and to destroy democracy in Britain.
Common Purpose is a recruitment organisation being used to recruit the bureaucrats needed to run Britain when the country is taken over by the European Union.Common Purpose is a Marxist-led, European Union 'Trojan Horse' fifth column operation and is part of the mechanism being used by Brussels to undermine and soften up British society to pave the way for the take-over of Britain by the European Union Collective of Communist Purpose (EUCCP), also known as the European Union Police State.
Common Purpose is a kind of secret society for careerists who want what Common Purpose has to offer - access to the corridors of power. It is difficult to comprehend the enormity of the corruption, deceit, fraud and treachery that Common Purpose and New Labour have engaged in since before 1997.
Common Purpose has been working with British governments to soften up Britain for takeover by the EU for at least the last eleven years. This is what makes Common Purpose so unique. Most people will find it difficult to comprehend that any government could stoop so low as to betray its own citizens.
COMMON PURPOSE OBJECTIVES:
The objectives of Common Purpose UK are to destroy the national identity of Britain, to destroy democracy in Britain and introduce the European Union Police State into Britain.
"Excited by the use of a 'fifth column' to drive forward change through the House of Lords, Mrs Middleton is keen to blur and break down boundaries between individuals, organisations, the public and private sectors, who then will need to 'break out of their organisational silos,' to form partnerships and act."
"The language is reminiscent of a form of Gramscian soft totalitarianism where western democracies can be overturned by undermining traditional beliefs and values, and the slow secretive merging of the public and private sectors into a state controlled partnership."
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear.
"Marcus Tullius Cicero - (106-43 BC) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator.
New Labour, the European Union Police State and Common Purpose have rotted the soul and infected the body politic of Britain.
COMMON PURPOSE MOTIVES:
So what motivates the Common Purpose leaders?
1. Well, getting power is one thing that has always been beloved of Marxists.
2. Another is the chance to get their hands on loads of free "government" or rather tax-payers' money.
3. Also is the fact that Marxists despise individuals and people who seek free choice but instead wish to make everybody from the same mould.
4. Plus they despise nations and wish to see the destruction of the nation state - in this case, the UK.
And what motivates those who support Common Purpose, go on courses and do what the Common Purpose network tells them to do in their work? How about fat salaries and nice pensions? That'll do to start with.
COMMON PURPOSE PHILOSOPHY - COMMUNITARIANISM:
The philosophy behind Common Purpose is Communitarianism - a form of Communism. When Tony B Liar talked about the "Third Way", he meant Communitarianism.Communitarians want to create a post-modern feudal society run by a small number of rich and powerful people with everyone else working as peasants. In order to do this they must destroy the middle class.These links will explain more about this evil and dictatorial philosophy:
"Communitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that explicitly rejects individualism."
COMMON PURPOSE METHODS
The methods used by Common Purpose are more or less what you would expect from EuroMarxists in this Jigsaw of Deception: the use of political correctness for social and mental manipulation, deceit, fraudulent agenda, corrupt abuse of public funds, obsessive control freakery, secrecy and bland, banal and meaningless statements.
COMMON PURPOSE PC BRIGADE:
Central to the manipulative techniques of Common Purpose is Political Correctness.
"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous liberal press which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
This definition has been attributed to students at Texas A and M University.
The father of the Communist Thought Police was Leon Trotsky, a Marxist of the Original School.
Thursday, 4 September 2014
Louise Mensch the former conservative MP for Corby, and former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, has taken to twitter to highlight the mass grooming of young white girls by Muslim grooming gangs in Britain. Fair enough you might say, and I support anyone who is bringing attention to it for the right reasons based on moral integrity. The issue here is her naivety in relation to her links to the Jewish community and her hypocrisy in relation to her attacking those who have been attempting to highlight this Muslim grooming scandal for years.
Mensch has a close relationship with the Jewish community having a connection with them dating back to her time as a student in Oxford, when she joined Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's Chabad L'Chaim Society. She also married Jewish Metallica manager Peter Mensch and recently moved to America.
On twitter she has displayed her obvious naivety and hypocrisy by proclaiming that:
'there is no stereotyping of a community, there is recognition that a splinter group of criminals have one background in common.'
In relation to the Muslim grooming gangs this is correct, however her obvious support for Jews has made her look a little bit silly to those who recognise that there is also another splinter group of criminals who have one background in common. They are the Jewish criminals who control the banking system, the mass media, the porn industry, the 'entertainment industry,' and who have a disproportionate influence in Western politics and Western foreign policy. She also doesn't seem to understand that the illegal wars that have taken place over the last decade have been in the strategic and geopolitical interests of Israel. Jewish criminals orchestrated that war, and thousands of our troops were killed securing Israels borders.
Maybe she would like to highlight this aswel, probably not. If you are going to correctly state in relation to the Muslim grooming gangs that they have one background in common, which is true, then also acknowledge the war mongering criminals in finance, media, entertainment and politics who have one common Jewish background. She would probably scream 'anti-semitism' at this truism.
Her true side comes out in another tweet in which she states that the cases of Muslim grooming are examples of religious and racial hatred against young white girls, but then goes on to say that the BNP who were bringing attention to this ten years ago, are 'mostly white English ethnic skinhead thugs.'
Louise Mensch might want to remember that she was also probably calling the BNP racists ten years ago when they were highlighting this problem, and were threatened with prison for doing so. The BNP at that time along with other organisations, were telling the truth she now apparently recognises. They were warning about the dangers of mass immigration and what the future of Britain would be, and people like her allowed it to happen by using the silencing words of 'racist' 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' So don't jump on your high horse now pretending to be some enlightened soul when you still use the same silencing words to slander people who were way ahead of the game whilst you were kissing behinds in Westminster.
She is exactly the kind of person who has always been part of the problem and not part of the solution. She was part of the political class that allowed this to happen in Britain, and now she has the audacity to appear innocent of all responsibility. All politicians who supported multiculturalist policies allowed this to happen and are every bit as guilty as the perpetrators as far as I am concerned. If the political class of which she was a part of had listened to nationalist organisations in the first place, then this may not have happened.
The reason this vile behaviour went on for so long is because the police and the authorities feared the label of racist, and this two faced parliamentary hypocrite is still using it to attack people who were being called racist ten years ago for daring to speak the truth.
13 March 2005
A documentation in two parts
During the 20th century, the United States Congress passed many laws that negatively affected White Americans in one way or another. However, none of those laws delivered as much cultural damage to White America as did two back-to-back laws passed in the mid-1960s: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965.
The purpose of this essay is to show that people of a certain ethnicity were instrumental in the creation of the 1964 and 1965 laws.
In the late 1950s, a civil-rights revolution spread throughout America - including within the U.S. government in Washington, D.C. Various legislative proposals, all designed to benefit racial minorities in one way or another, were tossed around by lobbyists, Senators and Representatives. Throughout the country, civil-rights groups demanded the passage of laws that would give minorities equal rights.
Although America's civil-rights groups appeared to be led by Blacks, in reality they were usually led -- or at least steered -- by Jews. Most of the men who founded the NAACP were jews, and for decades it had a jew as president. Martin Luther King Jr.'s chief advisor was jew Stanley Levison. The major civil-rights groups were funded mainly by Jewish donations. Furthermore, important civil-rights cases were argued and won in the courts by skilled Jewish lawyers. For example Jack Greenberg, who was a key figure surrounding the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. Another Jewish attorney, Nathan Margold, produced the in-depth report that became the NAACP's blueprint for its legal strategy in outlawing racial segregation. In fact, it could be said that the Margold report virtually ended racial segregation in America.
The stage for the civil-rights revolution within the federal government was set by Jewish Congressman Emanuel Celler (D-NY), via his groundbreaking Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil-rights law since the Civil War era. Celler wrote and sponsored the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which came from his House bill, H.R.6127, which was signed into law by President Eisenhower in September 1957. That law led to other minority-benefiting laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congressman Celler was a powerful force in the creation of the major civil-rights laws, the main reason being that, during the late 1950s/early 1960s, civil-rights advocates had learned to "use" the House of Representatives to advance their legislation. Thanks to Celler's chairmanship of certain House committees, civil-rights bills sailed through the House. Furthermore, civil-rights advocates were often able to use Congressional rules to allow their bills to bypass anti-civil-rights committees in the Senate, which increased the chances of their legislation becoming law. In other words, the House of Representatives was the "secret weapon" that was used by civil-rights advocates to create civil-rights laws, and Celler was the gatekeeper, so to speak, on the path that was taken by the civil-rights bills as they moved around the House.
Now we will highlight the 1964 and 1965 Acts, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Part I: the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Do you know why a private employer must -- by law -- hire Blacks, Mexicans and women? If you don't, the reason is: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - specifically Title VII of that Act, which outlawed any type of discrimination in employment. In other words, with the passage of that Act, private employers were no longer free to hire whom they wanted. In the name of freedom and civil rights, the Constitution was subverted, and genuine civil rights were taken away.
That 1964 Act, which came from Congressman Celler's House bill H.R.7152, was introduced in Congress on June 20, 1963, and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964. It is the most far-reaching civil-rights law ever created in America. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created, among other things, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which penalizes private businesses if they don't hire a certain number of racial minorities or women. The EEOC today functions as a medium through which organized coloreds can exact tribute from hard-working white men and the companies they found. The real "civil right" the 1964 act created was the right of the jewish bureaucrat and the black man to shake down the hated white.
It is worth mentioning that President John F. Kennedy was sort of responsible for the 1964 Act. He proposed a new, upgraded civil-rights law in the summer of 1963 and submitted it to Congress. The end result of that was Celler's bill H.R.7152, which was actually a stronger civil-rights bill than Kennedy wanted. (The idea for a strong civil-rights bill did not come from Kennedy himself but from many others, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights [see below] and Senator Hubert Humphrey).
Many people feel that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. They feel that it infringes on private-property rights by forcing private businesses to bend to the federal government's employment rules, and that it violates states' rights, since it compels the government to involve itself in civil-rights matters within the various states. The law also clearly infringes upon the freedom of association desires of White people. In effect it became illegal for whites to protect themselves from blacks, or in any way to refrain from mixing with them. Today anyone who calls for a return of the true civil right of free association will be attacked by the media as a racist who wants to return to the bad old days before civil rights.
It is true that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by gentiles in Congress, and signed into law by a gentile as well. But that Act needed to be conceived, written and lobbied-for first -- otherwise it would never have come into being. That's where these notable Jews came in:
Arnold Aronson (1911-1998) was founder and leader of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR).2 The LCCR, a powerful coalition of political and religious groups, organized major, countrywide lobbying efforts to aid passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Aronson was an icon within the Black civil rights movement. He received an award from President Bill Clinton, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for his civil-rights work. Indeed, civil-rights activist Clarence Mitchell Jr. once noted: "There would not have been a civil rights movement without the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and there would not have been a Leadership Conference on Civil Rights without (Arnold) Aronson." LCCR has been called the "chief lobbying force" for the 1960s civil-rights acts. Curiously, the building occupied by the LCCR was owned by a Jewish organization. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, D.C., under the watch of the LCCR.
Now we again mention Congressman Celler (1888-1981). Not only did Celler introduce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Congress, he oversaw the general creation of the Act within two committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Celler not only chaired the Judiciary Committee but also House subcommittee No. 5, which considered H.R.7152 . Subcommittee No. 5 was said to be the "most aggressive" entity in strengthening H.R.7152 . Furthermore, Celler handpicked some of the members of Subcommittee #5, ensuring that the 1964 Act had plenty of "teeth"; and he also was the floor manager in the House during debate on H.R.7152. Additionally, Celler put more teeth into H.R.7152 than were needed, in case the bill was watered-down later by its opponents - which it was, via a compromise bill called a "clean bill," which was the same bill with a few words changed to ensure more Congressional support for it. Celler employed tricks to get H.R.7152 through Congress, such as using a discharge petition to aid passage of the bill through the congressional committees. Of significance is that Celler lied about the intent of the 1964 Act when he denied that it would prevent employers from hiring whom they wanted:
"[T]he charge has been made that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be established by title VII of the bill would have the power to prevent a business from employing and promoting the people it wished, and that a 'Federal inspector' could then order the hiring and promotion only of employees of certain races or religious groups. This description of the bill is entirely wrong..." 
Celler had a long record of pro-civil-rights activity in Congress. In fact, Celler could be called one of the biggest Congressional cheerleaders for legislation that somehow benefited racial minorities.
And finally, the main author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Jewish assistant attorney general Norbert A. Schlei (1929-2003). (Schlei also wrote the Voting Rights Act of 1965).
1. On Kennedy as being prompted by others to shift to a stronger civil-rights stance, see the essay "A Brief History of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," by Robert D. Loevy; online at: http://faculty1.coloradocollege.edu/~bloevy/CivilRightsActOf1964/ . Here.
2. Aronson is also called a "co-founder" of LCCR - a significant understatement. For example, the City College of New York mentioned, on its website, that one of its students received an Arnold Aronson Fellowship, a fellowship that is "named for the LCCR's founder."
3. On LCCR as chief lobbying force see "Papers of the NAACP, Part 13, 1940-1955," preface titled "Scope and Content Note," page xi
4. On LCCR building as being owned by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, see Broken Alliance: the Turbulent Times Between Blacks and Jews in America. (New York; Charles Scribner's Sons); by Jonathan Kaufman; p. 98.
5. On Celler as heading both the House Judiciary Committee and House Subcommittee No. 5, see article "LBJ Champions the Civil Rights Act of 1964" by Ted Gittinger and Allen Fisher; U.S. National Archives & Records Administration, Summer 2004; and "The Background And Setting of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Chapter 1, by Robert D. Loevy, online.
 On subcommittee #5 as the most aggressive entity in stiffening the 1964 Act, see working paper "Southern Roots of the New Right: John C. Stennis and Federal School Desegregation, 1954-1972," by Joseph Crespino; online; to be formally published in 2006.
 from the opening speech in support of H.R.7152, made by Celler on the House floor, June 1963
Part II: the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (aka the Hart-Celler Act, the Immigration Act of 1965, and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965)
Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the idea for serious immigration reform appeared to the public to have come from President John F. Kennedy. After all, Kennedy had officially called for the reform of America's immigration laws in a letter that he presented to Congress on July 23, 1963.
A liberal immigration law, the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 -- which came from House bill H.R.2580 -- was written by Congressman Celler and gentile Senator Philip A. Hart (D-MI; 1912-1976), although Celler acted as the pointman for the Act by introducing it into Congress in January 1965. (Only Celler was mentioned by President Lyndon Johnson when he signed the Hart-Celler Act into law in October 1965, which highlights Celler's major -- as opposed to Hart's minor -- involvement in the creation of the Act. It seems as though Celler simply used Hart as a co-sponsor of the bill).
Celler had a long history of advocating liberal immigration laws, so much so that he was the subject of a 1994 research paper bearing the telling subtitle "Leading Advocate of Liberal Immigration Policy."
The Hart-Celler Act amended the McCarran-Walter immigration act of 1952. The McCarran-Walter law had mandated that immigrants be admitted into America based on their national origin. The Hart-Celler law abolished the national-origin rule and replaced it with family reunification, aka chain immigration, i.e. the close relatives of immigrants already living in America were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. as well.
For his part, Senator Hart worked closely with a group called the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference in an effort to get the 1965 Act passed. That Conference included 12 Jewish groups and the heavily-Jewish ACLU.
The Hart-Celler Act significantly changed the ethnic make-up of immigration into America. Before the Act was passed, the majority of immigrants coming to America was White. After the Act, the majority of immigrant arrivals was non-White (roughly 80% of the immigrants came to the U.S. from non-White countries). In other words, the 1965 Act reversed the racial make-up of immigration into America.
Jewish Senator Jacob Javits (1904-1986) also played a key role in the creation of the Hart-Celler Act. And Jewish attorney Schlei (see Part I above) conceived the idea of putting a "first come, first served" immigration rule into the Act, to replace the previous national-origins rule .
(Revealingly, an action by Jewish Senator Herbert H. Lehman (1878-1963) -- the son of an immigrant and a major player in pro-immigration legislation -- showed how important the issue of immigration reform can be to Jews: in the early 1950s, in what might be described as 'Jewish networking on immigration matters,' Lehman helped to install a Jew, Harry Rosenfield, as the executive director of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Then Lehman, his Jewish aid and Rosenfield endeavored to help pro-immigration Congressmen with matters pertaining to the liberalization of immigration laws. The chairman of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization was also a Jew, Philip Perlman. And telling of Jewish attitudes toward the McCarran-Walter law were Senator Lehman's remarks that it had a "racist" and "xenophobic" aura. Apparently for Lehman, a post-WWII Zionist, such an aura surrounding immigration law was okay in Israel, but not in America.)
Powerful Jewish organizations also greatly aided the passage of Hart-Celler by, for example, issuing formal statements of support for the Act to the Congressional committees. Both the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee played "major" roles in supporting the Act .
The Hart-Celler Act has, in just a few decades, transformed America into a mixed-race country teeming with Africans, Asians, and Latinos. And that was exactly what the American Jewish community intended all along, since Jews can theoretically avoid "anti-Semitism" by blending into racially-diverse populations.
1. Celler mentioned as co-authoring the 1965 Act: the President's Initiative On Race, Advisory Board, Meeting, held at the Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C., September 30, 1997, in the recorded minutes of the meeting. (Note: contains a typo in the mention of Celler's name.)
2. "Emanuel Celler of Brooklyn: Leading Advocate of Liberal Immigration Policy, 1945-52," by Bernard Lemelin, Canadian Review of American Studies, vol. 24, No 1 (1994), pp. 81-111
3. On Schlei conceiving the "first come, first served" idea: paper "Old Blood, New Blood, Weak Blood: The Nature of U.S. Immigration Laws" by Ronald Fernandez, Ph.D., Central Connecticut State University, Occasional Paper No. 63, July 2001
4. On the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee's role in the 1965 Act: essay "Jews And Immigration: Steinlight Soldiers On," by Marcus Epstein; published online at VDARE's website, June 19, 2004.
5. Regarding Jews and immigration policy, see Dr. Kevin MacDonald's report "Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review" (1998); online at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html
6. Details of the 1965 Act can be seen here: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist/526.htm .
In the late 1950s/early 1960s, a political movement appeared in America demanding that new laws be created to benefit racial minorities and liberalize immigration laws. That political movement spawned two important laws: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965.
Whites in Congress passed those laws, but Jews laid the foundation for the laws, built the laws, and lobbied for them, both inside and outside of Congress. Jews took advantage of standard White benevolence and used Whites to help them pass those laws not because the Jews necessarily cared about the welfare of Blacks and non-White immigrants, but because the Jews wanted to make their new home safe from "anti-Semitism." The Jews -- always a clever people -- knew that they could go unnoticed in a multicultural America, and in recent years they have (almost). Whether the multiculturalizing-of-America-to-benefit-the-Jews was good for Whites was beside the point, for as the late President Harry Truman said, the Jews are "very, very selfish."
The 1964/1965 Acts damaged America's White culture like no other laws in U.S. history. In fact, the odds are that they damaged American culture beyond repair. Thanks to those acts, the United States has gone from being a White republic to being a racial "melting-pot" (a term coined by the late Jewish writer Israel Zangwill), a "democracy" of racial and gender "equality," a place in which Blacks, Mexicans and Asians vote for minority or female politicians; a place in which the government decides who you may hire; a place in which White women commute over long distances to work in big-city office buildings instead of raising children at home. Jews, as the prime mover behind these two malignant acts, bear a heavy responsibility for the cultural debasement that those laws produced for White America.
A lot of people who are on the right path to true awakening often ask the question, 'why would Jews bring Islam to Europe.'
They are yet to fully understand the root cause of the problem. We have explained this many times but they still cannot see it.
Organised Jewry brings Islam to Europe for a number of reasons.
1, to destroy the ethnic and cultural make up of Europe.
2, to create an environment in Europe which leads to anti-Islamic feeling and which in turn creates support for Israel.
3, as revenge for what they see as 'historical anti-semitism against the Jews.'
Their hatred for Europe and the West is as vitriolic as it is for Islam, they rejoice in creating the clash of civilisations now manifesting itself on our streets. We oppose the Islamification of our continent fully, but we are aware of why it is happening and who is behind it and why.
We often refer to the Barbara Spectre quote which most of you are aware of, but read the following quote by Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement of Efrat.
"With the help of God, the gentiles there will adopt a healthier life with a lot of modesty and integrity, and not like the hypocritical Christianity which appears pure but is fundamentally corrupt.
"Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there.
"We will never forgive Europe's Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly. Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity.
"And now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won't be able to atone for.
"Even if we are in a major war with the region's Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity. Jews must pray that the Islamization of most of Europe will not harm the people of Israel."
Source (Jewish) - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html
The picture posted here are the words of Eliyokim Cohen, predictably both Efrati and Cohen leave out the Jewish role in creating the current situation in Europe, but others such as Barbara Lerner Spectre are not so cagey. This is what she had to say:
"I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural.. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of *OUR LEADING ROLE.* But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."