Jun 9, 2015

Groupthink in Sweden

via The Occidental Observer

Sweden has become something of a paradigm of what’s wrong with the West, but one doesn’t expect light to be shed on the subject in an article on the false confessions of a Swedish man. However, this article has an interesting observation. The basic facts:
Sture Bergwall … confessed to 30 killings in the 1970s and 80s and to dismembering and eating some of his victims. In trials beginning two decades ago he was convicted and locked up in an institution for the criminally insane.
But, in a story redolent of the darkest Nordic crime fiction, doubts continued to swirl around the case until an investigative journalist, the late Hannes Råstam, demonstrated that the confessions had no basis in fact. (“Lawyers blame groupthink in Sweden’s worst​​ miscarriage of justice“)
The false confessions have led to soul searching in the Swedish legal community and, as the title of the article indicates, the explanation is “groupthink.”
“In hindsight, it is easy to see mistakes in the Bergwall affair,” the commission in Stockholm said on Friday.

Hollywood Casting

via The Political Cesspool

Emma Stone
You’re a racist and a bigot if you have a problem with a black guy being cast as Heimdall in a movie about Thor.

You’re a racist and a bigot if you think casting a black guy as Julius Caesar distracts from the story.

If you’d rather that a black guy not be cast as Bond, James Bond, then you’re racist and a bigot and klansman and a global warming denier!

But, if you cast a White girl to play a character who is 1/4 Hawaiian and 1/4 Chinese, well, then, you messed up reeeeeeeal good, and you got some ‘splainin’ to do!
Aloha director Cameron Crowe is responding to some of the fierce backlash that accompanied the release of the movie.
The poorly reviewed Aloha, which had also caused controversy for its use of the Hawaiian word as its title, disturbed many viewers with its casting of Emma Stone as a character named “Allison Ng,” who is meant to be a quarter Hawaiian and a quarter Chinese, which Stone is not.
On Tuesday Crowe took to his blog, TheUncool, to offer a “heartfelt apology” for the casting choice.

“I have heard your words and your disappointment, and I offer you a heart-felt apology to all who felt this was an odd or misguided casting choice,” Crowe said.

Crowe also said that he was “grateful” for the dialogue surrounding the movie. “So many of us are hungry for stories with more racial diversity, more truth in representation, and I am anxious to help tell those stories in the future,” he said.
What a cur!

Natural Born Kulchur

via Radix

In the tumid political underbrush of the summer, there were a number of interesting and even important new sprouts, as Pat Buchanan slowly pushed aside Phil Gramm as the favored candidate of the Republican Right and almost all of the rest of the blossoming aspirants to the throne of Reagan and Bush withered in the indifferent heat of the season. Neither Richard Lugar nor Lamar Alexander nor Arlen Specter attracted the slightest interest, and even one-speech wonders like Alan Keys and certifiable crackpots like Bob Dornan produced only yawns. Mr. Buchanan's emergence as a serious candidate was due, of course, to the fact that he alone actually has something to say—about trade and the economic interests of the nation, about immigration and the nation's cultural identity, and about foreign policy and the nation's political interests in the world —that remains undreamt of in the platitudinous squints that serve as what most other Republican leaders are pleased to call their "visions."

Yet throughout the summer Sen. Robert Dole continued to hold the lead in public opinion polls, presumably not because of any vision he glimpses or has been able to share with his disciples but merely because he remains the most publicly visible of the announced candidates. It is to be expected that his commanding lead in the polls will begin to shrink as the campaign coagulates, but the Kansas senator was clearly determined to keep the lead, and the steps he took to do so provided what was perhaps the most instructive escapade of an otherwise tedious stage of the campaign.

His principal such step was his delivery in Los Angeles on May 31 of a speech about contemporary American popular culture, an oration that was barely five pages in length but offered intellectual munchies for the pundits for nearly a month afterward. Indeed, it was probably the most noticed speech Mr. Dole has ever given in his long career, and it may yet help him not only retain his lead in the opinion polls but also serve to nail his banner to the party's mast next year.

The main topic of Mr. Dole's remarks, of course, was Hollywood and all the wicked films and lyrics its corporate aesthetes have inflicted on us in recent years. The speech recalled Vice President Quayle's wisecrack about a television sit-com a few years earlier and immediately gave the pundits their cue to moan about the looming repression of the arts for which the Republicans secretly pine—even though barely a month earlier the exact same sages had wagged their beards in grave approval when President Clinton launched his own assault on radio talk-show hosts for inspiring the Oklahoma City bombers. Mr. Dole, however, is not Dan Quayle and knew how to handle himself. It was obvious that he was inviting controversy in a way that Mr. Quayle neither sought nor understood how to greet, and perhaps for that reason the savants who make it their business to protect the Republic from censorious philistines for the most part did not rise to the bait Mr. Dole so slyly offered them.

The speech was in many respects a stroke of political genius, since it not only gained Mr. Dole the headlines he wanted but also gave him what his main rival at the time, Mr. Gramm, had been unable to get—a credential as a spokesman for the moral and religious issues that today animate the passions of no less than a third of the GOP. Mr. Gramm, an economist by his education, refuses to talk or think about much of anything but economic matters and economic policy, and as a result, when he persistently refused to discuss or support these issues after the social conservatives of the party persistently insisted he do so, he began to flounder. Mr. Dole therefore presented himself as a spokesman for social issues at just the moment that Mr. Gramm's failure was being noticed and before Mr. Buchanan could run off with those issues all by himself.

Moreover, Mr. Dole donned the mantle of moralism in such a way that he committed himself to nothing whatsoever, and this is a large part of the genius of his Hollywood speech. Never known as a foe of abortion, a champion of prayer in school, an enemy of pornography, or a drummer of the public virtue, Mr. Dole in his speech carefully contrived to avoid committing himself or the party or the government to doing anything at all about the evils he was denouncing. Never once did he insinuate censorship or even suggest that Americans who agreed with him should just refrain from going to the movies. His remarks thus gained him a solid reputation as a moral reformer without any commmitment to any reform.

That reputation was immensely bolstered and maybe even invented in the days just after the speech, when the professional Christians of the Beltway sallied out of their cells to chuckle and coo over Mr. Dole's moral leaderhip. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, fresh from his own rhetorical abasement before the Anti-Defamation League, saluted the Dole speech as "eloquent" and acknowledged that the Majority Leader was definitely on the right track to receive the Coalition's imprimatur. Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council also praised the speech, and came even closer to endorsing Mr. Dole because of it, while William Bennett was trundled out of his ever- darkening obscurity to add his own approval.

And indeed much of the praise was merited. Mr. Dole blasted Hollywood for producing films that dwell on sex and violence and distributing lyrics, especially those of black rap groups, that are little more than the contents of their singers' lower intestinal tracts. It is out of character for the Majority Leader, a politician far more comfortable with building coalitions and balancing vote tallies, to talk about public morality, but if he's learned how, there should be every reason to support him. The problem is that both Mr. Dole's speech about Hollywood and popular culture and the eagerness with which the Christian Right embraced it points to what is really and more deeply wrong with American culture and actually helps explain why the kinds of endeavors Mr. Dole complained about are so dominant. The problem, in a teacup, is that neither Mr. Dole nor his fans in the Christian Right nor most of his supporters among American conservatives have the foggiest notion of what a popular culture should be. They have no such notion because the "visions" by which they have entranced themselves have no room for culture, and since no one else in the United States knows what a culture is or ought to be either, we are left with the morbid concoctions of Hollywood and the crippled musical droppings of Snoop Doggy Dog.

Mr. Dole's cultural preferences are evident in the films of which he expressed approval. While he condemned Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killersand Quentin Tarantino's True Romance as "films that revel in mindless violence and loveless sex," a characterization manifestly not true about the latter film, he praised such masterpieces as Disney's The Lion King, intended as a children's movie but capable of providing morally salubrious entertainment for senators, and True Lies, a virtually unwatchable chase movie that has the strapping Arnold Schwarzenegger massacring people far more mindlessly than Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in Stone's repulsive but carefully made film about two serial murderers. To be fair, Mr. Dole admitted later that he hadn't seen any of the films he was talking about. It might have helped if he had. Then again, it might not have.What is really frightening about American culture is that the films Mr. Dole praised are in no way preferable to those he damned. The only objection he or anyone else on the American right ever raises to any film is that it "glorifies sex and violence," though even such blood-soaked epics as Natural Born Killers and The Godfather, which also earned a good deal of preachy wind from the right when it appeared in the 1970s, clearly don't. What far less bloody films that no one on the right pays much attention to often say about the nature of man, society, and the universe is often far more degraded and dangerous than a few scenes of improbable shoot-outs and bedroom wrestling matches. Mr. Dole praised Forrest Gump, a pleasant and sentimental tale about a wise moron played by Tom Hanks, but it never occurred to him to mention Hanks' performance in Philadelphia, a non-violent and superficially decent film that is a protracted propaganda piece for the normalization of homosexuality. Mr. Dole expressed disgust for 2 Live Crew, but John Lennon's cuddly lyrics in Imagine about a world without country, property, or religion are far more subversive and far more influential. Lennon's fantasies of a one-world utopian communism are in fact the essence of what both the left and the neo-conservative right believe today.

If it's really evil films you want, however, the "slasher flicks" popularized in the 1980s and intended to appeal to pre- teens and adolescents—Wes Craven's interminable Nightmare on Elm Street series is typical—are perhaps the most evil ever made. Their persistent theme, cemented throughout numberless sequels, is that evil is stronger than good, that the monster that appears to have been destroyed at the end of the last installment is really indestructible, and that there is nothing anyone can do about it. The theme is in fact the core idea of Satanism, but I recall no one among conservatives or the religious right remarking on this. For that matter, even downright wholesome movies like the Star Wars series never clearly distinguished the moral character of the heroes from that of the villains. The former are physically attractive, while the bad guys wear helmets and uniforms vaguely reminiscent of stormtroopers, but there is no clear explanation of why one side is good and the other bad.

In fact, the most violent films Hollywood has produced in recent decades offer the clearest moral distinctions. No director was more notorious for depiction of graphic violence than the late Sam Peckinpah, but in The Wild BunchThe GetawayPat Garrett and Billy the Kid, and a host of other films, he drew sharp distinctions between good characters able and willing to assume burdens of responsibility for each other and bad characters who recognize no bonds or loyalties beyond their own greed and lust. For Peckinpah's heroes, it is the social bond—of an outlaw band, friendship, husband and wife—that makes them human, while for his villains, it is the denial or betrayal of such bonds that makes them evil. The same is true in Tarantino's True Romance, where the heroic characters are those willing to take risks and even lose their lives for wife, husband, or son, while everyone else, driven by greed, winds up literally killing each other. Of course, there's no reason why children should be allowed to see such a film, but Republicans might learn something from watching it. But they probably wouldn't, and neither would the religious right, because in the United States the "official right" has little interest in anything that doesn't affect politics and the pocket-book. Immersed in an essentially hedonistic and economistic world-view that recognizes nothing more important than material self-interest, the right is unable to form or even comment intelligently upon a culture, a normative way of life that transcends and shapes the pursuit of both power and money rather than being shaped by them. Hence, all that the right, religious or Republican, wants from culture is for it not to offend whatever habitual prejudices and tastes they happen to retain. The best kind of culture for them is what they think prevailed in the 1950s, when Pat Boone and Fabian crooned nothing that disturbed their affluent slumbers and Lucy and The Beaver reconfirmed every week the eternal virtues of an already crumbling nuclear family where the father figure was an object of ridicule whose authority was to be evaded and undermined.

Mr. Dole concluded his speech by quoting approvingly the words of Mark Canton, president of Universal Pictures. "Any smart business person can see what we must do," Mr. Canton remarked, "make more 'PG' rated films." But a culture consisting of nothing but children's movies is no more a real culture than Tupac Shakur is a real artist. What really smart "business persons" ought to be able to see is that when we ask nothing more of our culture than to be left alone to make money and run for president, what we will wind up with is exactly what we have now.

A Letter from a Fighting Father

via Elie Wiesel Cons the World

Dear Carolyn,

Since learning of you a few years ago I have learned a great deal.

Your work has been very instrumental in helping me to work on getting “Night” removed from the Freshman reading list in A.P. [advanced placement] English and Literature courses taught at the private high school where 3 of my 5 children are enrolled.

It has been a tough battle because in the midst of all that I was doing there was an administrative shake up due in part to one of the girls on the volleyball team being bullied.

Anyway, I have not let up in my pursuit of this mission. The original excuse given to me was that the teacher wanted a story about someone interned in a prison camp.* With so many great books why pick NIGHT? She could never give me a satisfactory answer. Not to cause a person to dig their heels in due to pride, I very delicately approached this issue from many avenues. BUT what has helped the MOST is your well documented articles on Elie Wiesel’s fraud. Of all the means available this has had the best response!!

There will be a meeting sometime this Summer. Do you have suggestions as to an alternate [book]?  This is a Catholic school.  I thought Alexander Solzhenitsyn would be good.

Anyway I’ve been very busy as of late and with some time today wanted to write and update you.

Best wishes always
Dr F.J. M____

Newspeak

via BUGS

The language used to create the total despotism in George Orwell’s book “1984” was called Newspeak.

There was nothing new about it.

Here you will see a British political leader using Newspeak:



She wants to ban things like “’Diversity’ = White Genocide,” complete with prison sentences.

This ruler uses language that was on the tongue of Hitler, Stalin, and every other outright dictator who wanted to imprison dissenters.

She says the British Government should ban “extremists.” There was a time when what she says now would be extremist, complete with a prison sentence.

Stalin gave the Soviet Union a Constitution in 1936 and it contained guarantees of free speech that made our first amendment look pale.

But it was understood, at least by those who survived, that no guarantee extended to an “extremist.”

Stalinists looked at things exactly the way the rulers of Britain do today.

To use her very words, he arrested “extremists” who sought to “undermine Soviet unity.”

The British Government does not use a single word that would not have been used by Hitler and Stalin.

It hasn’t been that long in history since she would have been arrested for “extremism” and “undermining British unity.”

I challenge you to find a single phrase in her whole dialogue that hasn’t been used and is not being used by every oppressive regime of which we have a record.

Trans-Jennerism as Psy-Op

via Alternative Right

Macho, macho man
Those who know me are well aware that I'm not the type of person to express reflexive disdain for the variegated flotsam of popular culture; in fact, I find the haughty "Kill Your TV" tropes favored by some social critics rather annoyingly smug and needlessly dismissive.
Still, I find myself struggling with the gratingly self-congratulatory tone of my own inner snob when I consider the fact that I know next to nothing about the "Kardashian" family. Indeed, when I think of Bruce Jenner (who apparently at some point married into said Kardashian family, a clan which became rich, famous, and reality show-worthy for some reason that I don't know and which doesn't even slightly interest me), the first image that comes to mind isn't this lurid new Vanity Fair"Call Me Kaitlyn" drag-pic, but the far more wholesome images that graced Wheaties cereal boxes during the time of my youth, that of manly, handsome Bruce heroically crossing the finish line, charged with virile stamina and victorious brio.

The breakfast of sexual chameleons?
These are happy images taken from my youth, which I will go on remembering fondly. I also recall more obscure ironies: it seems that the CBS program The Incredible Hulk changed the titular character's mild-mannered alter-ego from "Bruce" to "David" because "David" sounded more macho. In their satire of the show, MAD magazine mocked this decision on the part of Hulk's producers: how could "Bruce" be a unmanly name when a guy named "Bruce" had just proven to be the world's master decathalete?
It seems that the joke was on MAD, after all. As time has revealed, Bruce was never a man at all deep down in the hidden recesses of his soul, at least if we take his recent commentary on the subject for gospel truth. I have no idea what led Bruce/"Caitlin" on his/her/its journey into profound gender dysmorphia, and while I'm sure it's an interesting story, it's not one I find myself compelled to explore. Weird and freakish as his apparent proclivities strike me as being, I don't doubt that he truly feels the way he does about being male on the surface but female at the core; for him, it is "normal" to want to dress and look like a woman; from his perspective, there is nothing at all misguided about the notion of spending millions of dollars to transform yourself into a bodily shape you believe to be more befitting of your spiritual essence. Offputting as I find it all (and I'm hardly alone; the "pushback" against the Vanity Fair cover seems to have been quite pronounced.), I'm inclined to just let him be, and hope he gets it all sorted out properly in these, his twilight years.
Just the same, there is something undoubtedly disconcerting about the concerted campaign on the part of the establishment media to fling Jenner's flagrantly unseemly sex identity confusion into our faces and dare us to find it aesthetically appalling or metaphysically tragic, lest we be labeled as "bigoted" or "hateful." There seems to be an element of psychological warfare involved here, in which this aging Olympic medalist is nothing but a hapless prop. It is, after all, a common practice to make men dress like women at hazing rituals in order to shame and humiliate them. Reportedly, super-secretive and extremely powerful groups like "Skull and Bones" and others have welcomed their initiates through macabre ceremonies involving cross-dressing and masturbating in coffins. Similarly, interrogators at Abu Ghraib in Iraq made prisoners wear panties on their heads while female soldiers sexually humiliated them. 
Such psychological pummeling is clearly designed to emasculate the victims, to make them feel powerless, to strike despair into their hearts, to induce surrender, to elicit abasement. Is it that much of a stretch to suspect that, through broadcasting the "Caitlyn" Jenner drag-photo far and wide across all available media outlets, our scheming rulers intend to strike a vicious body blow to the morale of those who chafe against the ever-tightening totalitarian chokehold? Could trans-Jennerism, in fine, be an engineered event, designed to further the campaign to undermine and subvert Western masculinity?
Really, is it that far from the mark to wonder if a message is being sent to the non-elite, increasingly disenfranchised and displaced Occidental man? 
"Look at what we've done to a man who was once the essence of masculine strength and powerful athleticism! Do you really think a nobody like YOU stands a chance if you oppose us? If we can transform the great Bruce Jenner from a strapping Wheaties-box hero into a pathetic, freakishly disfigured, dress-wearing tranny, can you just imagine what we can do to YOU, little man? Therefore, bow down, reck our collective rod; conform to our dictates and serve our interests; fight in our wars, support our mandated social engineering schemes, and worship our christened leaders. In short, emasculate yourself: cease to be defiant, tuck your testicles in, lower your heads, put on your dress, and shuffle away into oblivion like a good little girl, and there will be far less trouble..."

Adult FriendFinder Hack Exposes Government Employees

via Theden

The hack of Adult FriendFinder (AFF) has exposed a number of government employees at both the local and federal levels, and has generated an entertaining amount of media coverage. According to CNN Money, the original hack was carried out in March by someone who goes by the handle ROR[RG], who initially tried to use the hack as leverage to extort $100,000 from the site. While it appears ROR[RG] was unsuccessful in that attempt, others have begun digging through the data, including Andrew “weev” Auernheimer:


As noted by Russia Today, these employees are in direct violation of rules relating to the use of their government email addresses:

The Pentagon says in a 2013 report that “Federal Government communication systems and equipment (including Government-owned telephones, facsimile machines, electronic mail, Internet systems and commercial systems when the federal Government pays for use) shall be for official use and authorized purposes only.”

Auernheimer shared his thoughts on finding these government email addresses on a site that advertises itself as a place for people “hoping to meet someone special for a hot, sexual relationship or even just a quick fling.” He said:

Government in America is decadent, and therefore it is weak. There are sex scandals left and right. People in the SEC jerking off to porn for thousands of hours while the Jews destroy our economy. This is more of the same. They take our tax dollars, and they redistribute it to worthless mud people. We should just kill them all.

Aurenheimer said his work on digging through the AFF data is part of his efforts at organizing various far right groups, especially White Nationalists/Identitarians. He said:

As a White Nationalist I look at the growth areas where we’re picking up converts. We’ve got /pol/, and we’ve got the Daily Stormer, and these places are pretty thick with troll content. Tons of people will join this movement just because it’s fun, so picking fights and being entertaining about it is of huge importance. There’s an inherent value in White Nationalists publicly debasing the government in an enthralling manner.

The exposure of the AFF data follows on the heels of Auernheimer’s manipulation of Twitter’s targeted ad system to push a message of White identity to all sorts of far left types. Risible outrage quickly followed, even though the offending tweet was largely tame, at least for Auernheimer’s standards.

It’s difficult to disagree with Aurenheimer that both the AFF hack and his Twitter stunt are indicative of the decadence and hypocrisy of our ruling elites. The elites push group identity for non-Whites 24/7, but any hint of group identity from Whites is instantly denounced as racist and likely the next coming of the Nazis, even when the expression of White identity is framed in innocuous terms. Decadence in government runs amok, with the AFF hack joining the list of other incidents involving government employees and sex, all of which is symptomatic of the strange and horrifying mix of A Brave New World and 1984 that is the modern world in 2015.

The Darkness Deepens

via Cambria Will Not Yield

Lear. If thou wilt weep my fortunes, take my eyes.
I know thee well enough; thy name is Gloucester.
Thou must be patient; we came crying hither.
Thou know’st, the first time that we smell the air,
We wawl and cry. I will preach to thee; mark

Gloucester. Alack, alack the day!

Lear. When we are born, we cry that we are come
To this great stage of fools.
––Shakespeare


It should surprise no one that the black homicide rates in our major cities have skyrocketed since the Ferguson, Missouri black riots, which were really black festivals celebrating the end of all police resistance to black violence. You see, the blacks are a very simple people, not pure and simple as Rousseau and his liberal heirs depicted them, but simple as the beasts of the jungle are simple: When they sense weakness, they attack their prey. The blacks have no idea why white people are weak and defenseless; they only know that they are, so they kill them. It is much easier to play a harp with only one string than to play a harp with many strings. You won’t get much of a sound from just one string, but you’ll keep things simple. The blacks have one string on which they play one song: Kill the whites.

White people, in contrast to the blacks, are very complex. They cannot stand to play on a harp with just one string; they need a multi-stringed harp they can play in union with a whole orchestra of other musical instruments. That orchestra might end up performing a symphony with the same theme as the one-stringed black harp, but it will be more musical than the black harp. Thus the liberal symphony calls black atrocities, the “understandable reaction to centuries of oppression”; white self-defense, “racism”; and black savages, the “pure and noble sons of nature.” Negro worship is the liberals’ symphony. Every time a white woman is raped by a black barbarian and every time a white is tortured and murdered by a black barbarian, we can hear the liberals’ symphony playing in the background, just as we hear background music when we go to the movies. Of course the particular movie that is playing in all theaters throughout the European world is White Genocide. The liberals wrote the script, they are directing it, and of course they are playing the background music for the black barbarians who, following the liberals’ script, are murdering the hated whites.

The fact that the white man sees life as more complex than a one-note harp should not preclude an attack on the unholy union between the liberals and the black barbarians. One can see, if he is an integral man, that life is complex, and still act. Complexity will not paralyze the man with a heart of flesh. However, whites have been mesmerized by the liberals’ symphony – “You must not resist black violence, you must worship the black gods with all your heart, mind, and soul.” But must we do so? Didn’t the white man once listen to a different music? The ancient European lay called us to rise and ride in defense of kith and kin. I don’t see why we should listen to the modernist symphony of negro worship when the lay of the antique Europeans still calls us to a higher destiny.

The written word of God and the church documents do not lead us directly to God; they must first be sifted in the heart of man. Christ came to us through the hearts of His people, the Europeans. So long as one European heart remains faithful to the Divine Presence, the image of God in man has not been entirely eradicated from the face of the earth. With malice aforethought, Satan uses the black barbarians to achieve his ends. When the negroes kill whites they do not simply kill them, they also torture and degrade them. There is a fearful satanic symmetry between the liberals’ constant debunking and degrading of the antique European culture and the blacks’ torture and degrading of their white victims. What happens in the soul of the tortured white victim of black barbarism? Does he die in despair and curse the God he feels has forsaken him? That is certainly what Satan wants: “Despair and die,” he tells us.

The use of negroes to destroy the white race is quite logical, satanically logical. The war will never cease until Satan is defeated in the last great battle between good and evil. But that doesn’t mean we should let Satan have free rein. The defense of our people should certainly take precedence over the defense of ‘democracy’ or ‘our constitution.’ What we love is what we should defend. And if we don’t love our kith and kin, then what kind of subhuman creatures are we? We are liberals.

The liberal symphony has drowned out the lay of the European Minstrel. Wherever a white man goes, he hears the music of negro worship, which is meant to make him feel an out-pouring of love and sympathy for the sacred negro while feeling a hatred for the people of his own race, who oppress the sacred negro. And while this music is playing, the work of slaughter goes on.

It is painfully obvious that the Haitization of the white nations is in progress. It started out slowly, but now the Haitization process has accelerated. In light of that fact, we should at least look to see if any white people have ever successfully resisted Haitization.

Our search brings us to the Reconstruction Era of the South (1865 – 1877). The intent of the radical Republicans was clear: The white Southerners were to be turned over to the people without mercy, the negroes. The white Southerners violently opposed the torture and murder of their people, and white genocide, for a time, was forestalled.

The fighting South was still a bred-in-the-bone culture when the Southern people of the Reconstruction Era fought against the liberals and the black barbarian shock troops, but when they started listening exclusively to the liberal symphony they became like unto the liberals of the North. It’s sad to hear modern Southern apologists defend the South by claiming that, “Those damn Yankees are more prejudiced than we are.” When the South successfully resisted Haitization, they saw themselves as a Christian people defending themselves against black barbarism; they were prejudiced in favor of Christ over the negro. All white Europeans need to recover that prejudice.

The glory of the European people was that they were conscious of their sinfulness before God. And because of their consciousness of their sins and God’s mercy, they loved much. They loved God in and through their people. Now that they are no longer conscious of their real sins but have invented a false sin, racial prejudice, and a false god, the negro, the Europeans do not love much. They do not love their own kith and kin enough to “cry havoc,” and let loose the dogs of war upon the liberals and their colored minions. The burning white child, Jonathan Foster, and all our white children deserve our love. When we forsake them, we forsake Him, and we cut ourselves off from His grace. In the eyes of the world, white people are less than nothing; they are evil vermin that must be exterminated. Our Lord’s words come to mind: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” The burning white child is also our Lord.

The liberals’ great symphony of negro worship seems to be the only song that white people hear. If they could once again listen to the lay of the European Minstrel, they would hear of a people who loved much and were forgiven their sins by a God of infinite love and mercy. Talk of European minstrels seems quite inappropriate in a scientific age. But the liberals have their romances, their Uncle Tom’s Cabin and their To Kill a Mockingbird, which they weave into their symphony of negro worship. The Christ story, as related by the minstrels of old Europe, is still the best response to white genocide.

David Copperfield started his personal history by stating, “Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.” The Europeans’ personal history once read like a beautiful fairy tale of brave heroes and virtuous maids who defied the devil and his minions in the name of Christ, the King of Fairyland. That old narrative has been taken over by somebody else. Now the Europeans dance to the music of Satan. Only those who remember the “love that once was there” will hear the lay of the European minstrel and refuse to worship Satan in and through the negro. Our white nation was meant to be a dwelling place for the living God, not a dwelling place for Satan and his minions. Why shouldn’t we become the heroes of our own story? We do not have to submit to the will of Satan.

The Son of God goes forth to war,
Who follows in His train?

Life in the Hockey Imperium: St. Joseph, Gordie Howe, & the Barber’s Part

via Counter-Currents

Gordie Howe
CC Editor’s Note: We are publishing the following piece on implicit whiteness in the Hockey Imperium to coincide with the Stanley Cup Finals.

The Landmark Deal

I had true modest heroes, well suited for a good life. Catholicism provided the fabric and measure. My elders were cut from the very cloth of St. Joseph. He was a family man and carpenter. A Workaday Joe. And, most of all, a servant to a higher authority that he didn’t question.

Such background saints mind their rank. They’re God’s jobbers from start to finish. In the family fold were such worthy Joes as Stan Jarzoski: a former US Army scout who landed on Omaha Beach and stalked behind Nazi lines until V-E Day. A strapping 6 footer, quiet as a prayer, he worked in the field of death even as he pushed a lawnmower. Then for every true light there was a stray shadow. Like my Uncle Art who was a closet homosexual, a self-taught painter of lurid scenes, and a butcher in my dad’s shop who only arrived drunk when sobriety was needed most during the holiday stampedes.

There you go: hero and drunkard balanced to turn the eternally unfinished wheel of parish life. But it’s too quaint. What about about the haloed giants, taller than church steeples, visible from afar? Gordie Howe was such a landmark Joe. He was a monumental model of Christian piety who, when the puck dropped, became a hunter-killer-thriller with tufts of otherworldly grace.

All the locals loved Gordie. He was the real ideal.

The Pagan Catholic Hockey Calendar

Howe HolycardIn sportswriter’s terms, Howe had a dominant presence on the ice. In boy cosmologist’s terms, Howe had much, much more. He had numinous presence, a legendary presence, a muscular-mystical presence in the flatlands of SE Michigan where the sewage from the steel-mils seeped into the swamps of Lake Erie.

Howe’s fame was the same on the Canadian side of the shipping channel where my sober uncle owned a tug-boat company. Tugs are the St. Joe’s, the brawny and dutiful seconds, of the Great Lakes fleet. Furthermore, gulls are angels if you’re privy to the backwater animism and nature worship written into Roman Catholic legalese. Strange but true! As far as life goes, I had to start somewhere. I started in the cradle of Pagan-Catholic-Borderline stuff.

Tugs and gulls were hyper-real. So were whispers in the wind and specters on the water. So was my loneliness. Incubating as a baby-faced Joe in a crystal blaze of winter, I had a hunch. Uh-oh. I had a badly heated, angry adolescent hunch that my dear childhood heroes were letting their wives, priests, and politicians do all the talking. Of course, that’s what real men-of-action do! But still. What about the reflective child, not the usual narcissist, who sees his face in mirrors of ice? It has a cold-cold attraction. And while every hoary Joe knows that cabin fever is bad, only a few very disturbed Joes know that cure in the open air, sparkling with light at the nadir of winter, can be worse.

Call it what you want. Psychological disturbance. Psychic disturbance. Maybe a fairy tale blend of both. But even as a minor rube with my balls shrinking in the cold, I had a big hairy hunch that my folks needed a hyper-voice to speak to the world and speak for themselves. It happened one day! Yes, it happened one ordinary day in the ordinary life of an ordinary Joe walking a fresh carpet of snow. I suddenly had a hunch, quite disturbing for a Child of Jesus, that my folks needed a borderline Wagner to chart the rolling mists, crackling ice-flows and razor-backed currents of the Detroit River in January. The site-specific haunt! The metallic Rhine Jr.! The steel grey soul-scape for Gordie Howe’s hammer arms, Red Wing jersey, and flashing skates.

It was too much. It was an aesthetically sound but morally iffy glimpse into the Sacred Heart of Time. The magnification of Creation’s core pulse, wherein avatars are beat into shape, was a-okay for a religious kid. But the exaggeration of my own creative impulse was as problematic as egomania in the Renaissance. Let me put this in proper Catholic terms. Every Pope with a scepter knows that heresy is a truth taken too far. And every altar boy at a pisser knows that if you shake it more than twice you’re playing with it. What I’m saying is that it was fine, within customary limits, to see Gordie Howe as seasonal hockey god. But it was very, very touchy to see him as was seasonal hockey god who was dormant in summer when there was an abundance of florid glee and birds ‘n bees in the bushy air. A cyclical Wotan! Yes, I saw Mr. Howe as a cyclical Wotan, with local accents, who appeared in the dead of winter when all was lost.

Howe Family
The Howe family
Very, very touchy. A synthesis of real poetic genius to retard the instant I put it in words! No wonder, in drunk’s terms, I didn’t know whether to shit or puke. Now, as a learned hick, I can defend my awful silence with Rilke’s line, “For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror.” But as a kid I was dumbstruck by the timely synchronicity. I just didn’t have the lyrical spit for Howe’s redressed avatar’s fit into the Church-Hockey-Astropagan calendar. Staring into the heavy northern heavens, I only had the vision. It meant something.

Trophy Eugenics and the Bald Truth

Yes, I had true modest heroes. Easily overlooked between the ends of NYC and LA. From the heights of a Shyster’s jet: an underwhelming land for an underwhelming people! A pale settlement for goyim! A static pool of yeoman nobodies with purely economic fluctuations between good debt and bad debt.

My country within a country. My cold and hearty people. Furthermore, my overlooked species of inbred White Country Folks with no more hyprid-vigor than a lean hillbilly iron worker crossed with a stout Irish-Catholic wench. That’s God’s Plan for agile defensemen and power forwards. Every rutting Joe knows. So does every dear girl in estrus. Only the town barber knows, as a comber of truths, that it’s also the non-Nazi secret of Trophy Eugenics in the Hockey Imperium.

The Hockey Imperium, for those on the inside, is a Medieval State of Mind that religiously rules from lower Michigan to upper Ontario. A subconscious Holy Roman Empire with shrines, banners, spires, and festive tournaments. My mono-culture! Maybe evolved. Maybe devolved. Maybe timeless. Most certainly a custom-made Pucktopia of spirited sport in glove: city, state, and regional jousts with trophy of virgins, if you’re lucky, in the bleachers. Like anything else in life, it’s all hooey until the moment of truth. My brother is testimony to that. He played goalie on a championship team that asserted authority, like deputized knights, all along the frontier. He renewed the dynasty. He upheld the realm and family standard. He verified the lore like a saintly enough Joe on a mission that was much, much larger than himself. True to his calling, he nailed it!

Too much Medieval chew on my bib? Too much gah-gah from the cradle of Dark Age élan? Just take the high moral arc on the Rainbow Express between NY and LA. Just look down on my homeland as a hotbed of neo-Klan and trigger-happy militia. A dysgenic fucktopia of pogromatic hicks! Papists, bible-thumpers, and cross-bred racists! Then you can trash, even White Trash, my boy-to-man travelogue.

The Critical Crisis

Now for the critical crisis. Not the usual crucible in the so called “Multi-Cult.” That’s marquee code for race mix-up. Preached by pulpiteers who’re born to rule: inbred intelligentsia, sticky IQ fetishists, and embedded reformers at a price.

God bless ‘em. The righteous fuckers have, at least, an ongoing class. A hip allegiance to their own rich stock. Furthermore, I’m not privy to Grand Design outside the Hockey Imperium built upon the remnants, lakes, and ponds, of the Ice Age. I’m geo-teleptically limited. So I can’t be 100% sure that there’s no treasure at the end of Rainbow America’s overarching, messianic and tutti-fruity arc. I luv-luv-luv anyone who really believes that lore. But I have enough problems with my own Pagan-Catholic proof. Which, as my brother knows, is nailed in the living.

Trust me, I tried be the strong silent type. But at the first blush of crisis I saw fairy dust in the powdered snow and gold lamé gowns in the scavenging carp. Wagner was in the leaden grey clouds but something else was in the skirts of snow. A fluffy-fickle soulfulness! A girly-girly joy in the bosom of Winter’s Hag. All of Mother Nature colder than a witch’s tit yet, no heresy intended, “redeemed” by majestic-angelic kisses in flurries. Uh oh. This was a mated peek into the Sacred Heart of Time. Which is to say I was showered with a motherlode of bridal laundry, streaming white veils with silver stitches, at Zero Hour when all was lost. Thanks but no thanks for the glimpse into the cosmic wheel! There’s been a mistake! For one thing, I wasn’t ready for the executive poet’s vocation to see the Nature of Woman as more than pussy and, within that nascent study, to see any stout homegirl as more than an incubator of agile defensemen and power-forwards. I lacked this. I lacked that. I had no maturity, even, to fuck-up! And so I froze, painfully dumbfounded, in a swirl of laced sugars that you’d have to be a Mozart, a buck sissy, a real Olympian amongst all kinds of flakey flakes to master.

This wasn’t normal. It was miraculous at best and cruel at worst. I’d been given a very big job without blue-prints. With only a model failure, Uncle Art, to provide range in the werks that mocked my intestines. Mea-culpa. I’m so sorry. I’ve never recovered from the Pagan-Catholic-Poet’s epiphany. If only my critical crisis had rushed me to the threshold of Social Justice work. I coulda-woulda-shoulda been a slick New Age Joe bringing the Human Family to my hometown! And I’ll be the first to admit that there’s much to be said for going wide in the well-rounded world instead of going deep-deep-deep into your own cold interior.

No such luck. Instead, I was fated to receive the miracle heft of Virgin Mary flurries and war-cloud Valkyries that buried Uncle Art. No wonder he didn’t know, given a glimpse of super-beauty, whether to shit or go blind. Sure he was a homo. So what? You’d have to be a spiritually spent shrink, a techno-humanist-clinician connecting dots on a godless chart, to say that his critical crisis was “penis” as such. Please!

Uncle Art was called to be an artist. In curator’s terms, he was called to be a painter of local color. In cosmologist’s terms, he was called to be a wizard with a provincial palate. More than a craftsman and less than a saint, he was given to be a psychic medium. A wand smith. A wand smith with a tuft of wet XXX hairs at the far extreme of his brush with an eternally recurring canvas of pure virgin potential. That was the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega, of his sorry life.

It was too much.

Squaring the Wheel

Uncle Art heard the call deep inside the crotch of fate. He tilted like a half-hearted sport with a sorry thrust and guess what? He made his non-splash in the common pool and/or bum toilet. Put plainly, he died as both a failed Joe Normal and a failed artist.

No guts, no glory. No raw heroic effort, no epic-operatic tragedy. That’s the cold-cold law of Pagan Nature that’s worked into Roman Catholic mythos. Furthermore, to release Uncle Art from the afterlife of burning slander, very few men manage to “Square the Wheel” of parish life. Very few men succeed as Regular Joes and Stellar Joes at once. Like Gordie Howe. He was a shy Canadian farmboy who, moved by destiny, got his start at Olympia Stadium in Detroit. He became a hockey god. He realized his towering 360 degree genius for pretty goals, borderline cheats and ugly brawling.

And Howe let his wife, an astute reader of small print in hockey contracts, do all the talking. Everyone loved Gordie. Everyone, in the milky white bosom of the Hockey Imperium, loved the Howe family. They nailed the evergreen dynamic.

The Barbers Part

I’ve tried to convey the spirit of my grooming along the shore where the smoke stacks padded the clouds. And where the local color faded under the dead-weight of winter. If you don’t get my hyper-drift? If you think that I’m mythologizing too much about cold-grey horizons downwind from Detroit? Then talk to a starving deer, a young buck, at the edge of an ice-pond at sunset. He’s knows the legendary chill of winter in the sticks. He’s a living symbol of the haunt.

The town barber, for his part, remains a shapeshifting constant. In backwater poesy, he’s a super-animated anchor whose job is to be as deep or shallow as the guy in his chair. In fair language, he’s a two-bit shrink who diagnoses heads within the limits of the Hippocratic Oath and frontier codes. In all cases, he’s tempered by seasoned knowledge. He knows that, like timeless masterpieces, one can hardly say what makes his fishy mono-culture whole. There a single congenital spiral in the lakes, rivers, swamps, and air. You’re born into it. Customer A says a soulful prayer to primordial shore gods after shooting a deer for venison steaks and trophy antlers. Customer B blushes with venal pride, exquisitely mean, after shooting a rogue squirrel with a .22 rifle, through a steel reinforced milk chute, who dared crawl down the rusty chain to raid his wife’s bird-feeder hanging from a lilac bush outside her kitchen window. And so it goes.

Inside the tinted door of Gino’s Barbershop, not at all transparent in the Liberal Democratic way, there’s a deeply seated commerce in individual styles within the local fold. Sharing a mirror, Gino puts every man’s prize pagan cowlick in place with a final dab, after all, of Christian Morality. And that’s that. See ya soon!

Gino has solved himself and more. He’s squared the Wheel of Parish Life in his own modest style. He’s model man even as he ruptures the template and yaps like a diplomat’s mistress. Who cares? Go for it! Show us how! He’s been groomed through the generations since his great-grandpappy drew first-blood on a pink ear. Gino has aced the proofs! He has a barber’s license, an ex-Marine’s license, and a full-blooded Italian’s license to magnify touchy feelings like Paganini or Caruso gone North. Not bad work if you can get it! And the barber gets it right.

Boy oh boy. Man oh man. As far as my life goes, from start to finish, I can’t say more. I just hope, with all the sincerity that a ramblin’ Joe can muster, that I’ve nailed it.

Ann Coulter's Book Captures Threat from Mass Immigration but Hides Jewish Involvement

via DavidDuke.com

There has been a great deal of talk in the past few days about the new book on immigration by Ann Coulter, Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole.

The book is being very well received by anti-immigration activists, not just for the boost in attention that the anti-immigration position will get in the media but also because Coulter is devoting most of the book to legal immigration, and not just the safer target of illegal immigration. But is this really the game-changing book that many anti-immigration activists hope it will be? I have my doubts.

First of all, the book completely leaves out the Jewish leading role in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which is the law that governs the legal immigration that Coulter’s book addresses. Instead, she blames everything on “the left,” which she says is willing to allow the U.S. to become a poor third-world country just so that a government-dependent non-white majority will make the Democrats a permanent ruling party. This is very different from the argument that Jews are the main force behind immigration and are motivated by a divide-and-conquer strategy and the desire to make sure a nationalism never develops in a cohesive white majority that could threaten Jewish rule. So which is it?

The bill was proposed by Emanuel Celler, a Jewish Democratic Congressman from New York. In 1965 Democrats had strong majorities in both the House and the Senate. Coulter seems to pin much of the blame on Ted Kennedy, and it is true that he was a high-profile promoter of the bill, but at the time was only a 33-year-old freshman with little power. The key person in the Senate was Jewish Republican Senator Jacob Javits. Moreover, the bill passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Only three Republican senators and 10 Republican representatives voted against it. The only real Congressional opposition came from Southern Democrats.

In the years since passage of the bill, the largest amnesty to its violators who entered the United States illegally was granted by conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan. Also, Coulter herself admits that the corporate world has also favored open borders as it keeps wages down. So pinning all the blame on Liberals just doesn’t fit.

On the other hand, Professor Kevin MacDonald thoroughly documented the leading Jewish role in our current immigration system in Chapter Seven of the Culture of Critique, which you can find here. And of course Dr. Duke has been talking about this for decades, and his books “My Awakening” and “Jewish Supremacism” are must-reads on this and many other issues.  And it wasn’t just confined to legislative leaders. There were Jewish policy makers in the executive branch in both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as various explicitly Jewish organizations like the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, the Council of Jewish Federations & Welfare Funds, and B’nai B’rith, as well as Jewish dominated organizations like the ACLU and Americans from Democratic Action which played prominent roles and specifically pushed for and end to restrictions on national origins.

What’s more, if you look at the current push for “immigration reform,” you see the same Jewish preponderance, and it’s not just liberal Jews. The neocons are famously pro-immigration. Sheldon Adelson, who seems to be the majority shareholder of the Republican Party, co-authored an opinion piece in the New York Times in favor of immigration reform. The kosher candidates competing for Adelson and other Jewish Republican megadonor’s shekels are also pro-immigration. So let’s get this straight. Jews are the real force behind immigration, not Liberals.

So then what should we make of Coulter and her book. It could be valuable if it opens up public discourse on the implications of legal immigration and the issue that the national origins of immigrants makes a difference in their impact on society. But frankly, I feel that her book will wind up being a liability for the anti-immigration position.

First of all, I don’t see how you can win a struggle if you won’t even acknowledge who your opponent is. Moreover, in falsely blaming “liberals” and impugning the worst of intentions on them, she is certain to alienate them. There are not enough people in the choir she preaches to for a victory, and there are plenty of liberals who have good reason to want a clamp down on immigration, whether they realize it or not.

Also, one of the headline claims she makes is that there are 30 million illegal immigrants in the United States already. From what I can tell, her data consists largely of very indirect measures like overseas remittances of funds, and while I am no expert on the issue the 30 million figure for just illegals seems excessive. Seeing as her book is supposed to be about legal immigration, I don’t know what the point of emphasizing such a high estimate for illegals would be. If the figure winds up being exaggerated, or is just not convincing to people, it could undermine the whole book.

Earlier this week on the Dr. Duke radio show, we discussed the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, and the great harm that has been done to it by anti-Zionist Zionists. People like Noam Chomsky have written scathing books about the Israeli crimes against Palestinians, but at the end of the day put the blame on corporate-sponsored American imperialism and prevent discussion of the Jewish domination of American foreign policy. Without being able to identify the underlying cause of the problem, the Palestinian Solidarity Movement has been doomed to failure. Which was probably the intent from the beginning.

Likewise, if Ann Coulter becomes the leading voice in the anti-immigration movement and fails to address the Jewish domination of American immigration policy, failure is a certainty. And if Fox News becomes the main platform for anti-immigration voices, then we should know that the fix is in.

Remember the Tea Party in 2008? It followed the Ron Paul campaign and focused on ending the Federal Reserve and stopping the neocon wars and domestic surveillance. Overt discussion of Jewish domination was bubbling below the surface. Then on the day after Obama’s inauguration in 2009, Fox News became the sponsor of the Tea Party, parachuted in ludicrous Zio-maniac leaders like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, and suddenly the focus of the movement shifted to Obamacare. It became completely kosher — and complicit in the wars, the surveillance, and even the Fed.

So, Ann Coulter’s book represents both an opportunity and a challenge. It provides the opportunity to address the existential dangers of the current immigration legal framework while the issue is topical. But the challenge of correcting a false and doomed narrative that completely lets the real Jewish culprits off the hook and free to continue pushing for open boarders should not be taken lightly.

Jewish supremacists dominate the policy and opinion-making apparatus in thus country for both the left and the right. They dominate the critical parts of the bureaucracy, the financing of our elections, the media, and academic and research institutions. We are not going to win any meaningful victories on immigration or any of the other existential threats posed by Jewish supremacism without publicly identifying those who have conquered us and are imposing these destructive policies on us. We can hardly pin our hopes on a cheerleader for the Zio-wars who shields the Jewish culprits from any blame for the immigration crisis.

Europe Will Change from a White Europe to an African Europe if Mass Immigration Is Not Ended

via White GeNOcide Project

Libyan Foreign Minister, Mohamed al-Ghirani, has warned Europe that if it does not help Libya to stop illegal immigration, Europe could be turned minority White.

“We tell you: come and talk and cooperate with us, the national salvation government,” Ghirani said
“If Europe doesn’t cooperate, then after (some) years Europe will be completely Black. Europe will change from a White Europe to an African Europe.”
The Daily Mail reports that Libya’s government has stopped thousands of African immigrants from entering Europe, but do not have the resources to stop smugglers or patrol the large desert areas.

Now we cannot do anything. The state is weak,” Ghirani continued. “We need logistics, intelligence, aircraft.

Back in 2010, ex-Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi also echoed Ghirani’s warning.

Gaddafi warned that “Europe runs the risk of turning black from illegal immigration, it could turn into Africa“.

He told the EU leaders that Libya needed support, but instead, they dropped bombs on one of the few African countries which were protecting Europe’s borders.
A lot of these non-White leaders think that our own White elite want to stop Europe, America, Canada, and Australia from becoming minority White – but, actually, that is just what they want to happen.

It’s an incredibly bizarre situation, but for several decades now, our own White elite have been spearheading a campaign of White genocide.

Friends of Israel: Old and New Patterns in British Politics

via The Occidental Observer

Nicola Sturgeon: Representing everything
wrong with White women, today
Two interesting patterns became apparent after the recent general election in Britain. One of them has been extensively discussed in the mainstream media. The other hasn’t been discussed at all. Why not? Because it involves Britain’s most powerful ethnic group and that group intends to maintain its stranglehold on British politics. Power that can’t be discussed is also power that can’t be challenged.

Key qualities of the left

First, let’s look at the pattern that could be discussed in the mainstream: the resounding success of the Scottish National Party, which held six of fifty-nine seats in Scotland before the election. Now it holds fifty-six. A huge Labour majority has evaporated in a single day. The fiasco is further proof that the left doesn’t understand the societies it wants to control. As I pointed out in “The Toxicity of Truth,” parties like Labour are interested in power, not in facts, logic or objective reality. But their insatiable greed for power is sometimes thwarted by another of their key qualities: their boundless incompetence.

Labour gave Scotland more and more autonomy in the confident belief that this would “kill Scottish nationalism stone dead.” They thought they were injecting cyanide into the SNP. In fact, they were injecting steroids. Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s authoritarian, high-testosterone female leader, became a kind of mini-Obama during the election campaign. Just as millions of deluded narcissists in Europe wished they could vote for Obama in 2008, so thousands of deluded narcissists in England wished they could vote for Sturgeon in 2015. After all, she wants to put “equality and fairness” at the heart of Scottish politics, and she favours immigration and refugee policy that would only speed the Third Worldization of the U.K. What could be nobler than that?

But “equality” is an Orwellian term when it’s used by a left-winger. Like Obama, Sturgeon doesn’t want to make women, homosexuals and non-Whites equal. No, she wants to make them privileged, immune from criticism, free to abuse power as they please. If the SNP win full independence for Scotland, they will do what a very similar ruling elite has done across the North Sea in Sweden: open Scotland’s borders to the Third World and begin to destroy their own nation.

Friends of Israel

That is what Labour did to England after they won the general election in 1997, assisted by their many Scottish MPs. Thanks to their own incompetent meddling, Labour have now lost their dominance in Scotland, perhaps for good. Even their Scottish leader, Jim Murphy, lost his seat in the SNP landslide. Did his constituents finally rebel against his membership of the warmongering neo-con Henry Jackson Society? No. Most of them will never have heard of the Society, to which prominent Tories like Michael Gove also belong.

Nor will his constituents have heard of another organization that gave orders to Murphy: Labour Friends of Israel, which was the most important and influential lobby-group in British politics during the previous Labour government. Now that role is taken by its mirror-image: Conservative Friends of Israel. If anyone thinks Britain is a genuine democracy, they haven’t been paying attention.

Whichever party wins a general election in Britain, Jewish donors will exercise a disproportionate influence on the policies it then follows. But if you say that British politics are dominated by Jewish concerns, you will be damned as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist by all mainstream commentators. What do the facts matter, after all? But the evidence for Jewish influence is overwhelming, which is precisely why it can’t be discussed. Before the general election, the Tory party had two Jewish chairmen, the low-profile Lord Feldman and the high-profile Grant Shapps. Unfortunately, Shapps’ profile became a little too high: he was accused of making large sums of money by using disguise, trickery, plagiarism and testimonials from “people who seem not to exist.”

Meet the New Boss…

In a properly regulated society, such accusations, being clearly anti-Semitic in tone and motivation, would result in a stiff prison sentence. Alas, British society is not yet properly regulated and David Cameron, Britain’s part-Jewish, all-Zionist prime minister, felt the need to sideline Shapps after the election, making him “minister of state at the Department for International Development.” Shapps has been replaced as Tory chairman by one Robert Halfon, who will, according to Cameron, prove that the Tories are “the real party of working people.”

I doubt that, because I’ve been watching Robert Halfon for some time. Here he is back in 2010, hard at work on behalf of a foreign country:
The Friends of Israel Initiative was launched to a rapturous reception at the British Parliament …
At the invitation of the Honourable Robert Halfon, MP and hosted by the Henry Jackson Society, the Initiative was launched to a rapturous reception at the British Parliament on Monday, July 19. The event opened a UK front in the group’s campaign to bring reason and decency back to the discussion about Israel. Speaking in a packed Committee Room 14, scene of some of the most dramatic moments in British parliamentary history, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was joined at the launch by former president of the Italian Senate Marcello Pera, the acclaimed British historian Andrew Roberts and by British [author, academic and one time lawyer for Princess Diana, Anthony Julius. (Friends of Israel Initiative, 19th July 2010)

Robert Halfon (left) and other Friends of Israel
Robert Halfon (left) and other Friends of Israel

And here he is in 2014 discussing the millions of “working people” who support UKIP:
Ukip members ‘akin to Nazis’, says Tory MP who claims it has cleansed his party of extremists
A Tory MP has claimed Ukip has done David Cameron’s party a favour by “cleansing” it of people with extreme views. Robert Halfon accused Ukip MEP [Member of the European Parliament] Gerard Batten of supporting a policy “literally akin to the Nazis” by suggesting Muslims should sign a charter rejecting violence. …
Mr Halfon, whose Jewish grandfather was forced to flee Libya to escape persecution, added: “I genuinely find it abhorrent and frightening. I’m amazed that man is still an MEP. How someone could say such a thing and then not apologise for it…”
But he added: “In many ways Ukip have done us an enormous favour because they’re cleansing people from the Tory party that had these kinds of views, which is great because I don’t want people who have those kinds of views in my party. So good luck to them, really.” (Ukip members ‘akin to Nazis’, says Tory MP who claims it has cleansed his party of extremists, The Independent, 6th March 2014)

Steve Hilton, né Hircsák
Steve Hilton, né Hircsák

So Grant Shapps ceases to be Tory chairman and is replaced by Robert Halfon. Elsewhere, the decidedly non-conservative Steve Hilton, who thinks it would be an “incredible coup for London if Mike Bloomberg could be persuaded to run for mayor,” has returned to advise Cameron on further ways to strengthen cultural Marxism in the Tory party. Hilton, whose family originally came from Hungary and had the surname Hircsák, is very likely Jewish. His close collaborator, Oliver “Left-Wing” Letwin, is certainly Jewish. But this pattern of Jewish influence went entirely undiscussed in the mainstream media, despite its huge importance.

Freedom and Democracy

But the Jewish lobby’s plans for Britain are by no means complete. After the election, Cameron and Theresa May, our authoritarian, high-testosterone Home Secretary, announced that they want to defend the core British value of liberty by launching a further assault on liberty. It’s so precious it has to be severely rationed, you see. And guess who has warmly welcomed their proposals? None other than Moshe Kantor, the Russo-Jewish billionaire whose love of ugly paintings and hatred of White Christian Europe I discussed in “Moshe Is Monitoring You.”

Kantor channelled George Orwell for an article in the Daily Telegraph, the house-paper of the British franchise of Conservatism Inc. But while Orwell satirized double-think, Kantor expects his readers to take it seriously:
Britain is too tolerant of the intolerant
Measures proposed by David Cameron and Theresa May to crack down on Islamic extremism are crucial to protect our liberties David Cameron’s counterterrorism bill marks a progressive step for freedom and democracy in the 21st century. In an age where war is waged by individuals, not armies, and weapons are readily available to anyone with the internet, we need new legislation to address adequately this changing security paradigm. According to the recent report on global anti-Semitic incidents by the Kantor Centre at Tel Aviv University, the UK registered the second highest number of violent assaults – and the largest percentage annual increase – of countries surveyed, up by 48 per cent, with 141 incidents in 2014, up from 95 in 2013. Not just incidents of anti-Semitic speech, however grotesque those are, but actual physical violence.
This dangerous behaviour has been evident for many years now, and as a representative and leader of European Jewry, I can attest to the increase of hate and intolerance experienced by Jews in the UK. The Jewish community does not experience this in isolation. All of society is currently dealing with this violent tide of extremism, and we will all benefit from decisive action from the UK Government.
Before now, in an attempt to stay true to liberal democratic tradition, the UK, and other European states have dogmatically, remained tolerant of the intolerant. They have allowed people to incite hate and to further radicalism, in the misguided and dangerous belief that freedom of speech is sacrosanct – whatever the cost. Radicalism may start with speech, but it does not end with speech alone. Speech invariably turns to violence, as we have seen across Europe and the world this year – against Jews and against many other law-abiding citizens. …
The time has come for us to commit to using the law to limit extremism which discriminates against religious belief and expression, yet maintains freedom of speech. If we continue to allow them to operate under the radar, we are knowingly undermining national security and the lives of the citizens the Government has been charged with protecting.
I have been a proponent of such legislation for a long time and I am working a draft pan-European Model Law for Secure Tolerance that I believe complements today’s measures and provides a framework for European states to review and implement for the sake of national security in an age of terrorism. Reasonable social and legal standards are needed to protect the rights of the individual and the sustainability of the multicultural community.
Legislation, however welcome, is not though enough on its own. It needs to be accompanied by better intelligence cooperation, smart policing methods and crucially educational initiatives to educate our young on the need for tolerance and community cohesion. (Britain is too tolerant of the intolerant, The Daily Telegraph, 13th May 2015)

Moshe Kantor: Tyranny Is Freedom
Moshe Kantor: Tyranny Is Freedom

You see? We have to defend liberty by destroying it. Mass immigration into Europe by violent and corrupt Muslims has been firmly supported by Jews like Kantor, but was never wanted by the native Whites of Europe. With classic chutzpah, Kantor uses the harm done by Muslim immigration to justify ever harsher laws against political resistance by Whites and ever more intrusive surveillance of their private lives. He then calls this neo-Stalinism a “progressive step for freedom and democracy.”

Have staunch libertarians like Mark Steyn, Nick Cohen and Douglas Murray ridiculed Kantor’s self-serving nonsense and condemned him as a dedicated enemy of free speech? No, of course not. When Kantor says he believes in “freedom and democracy,” he’s clearly lying. When Steyn, Cohen and Murray say they believe in free speech, they’re also lying. All four of them believe in something quite different: Jewish power and privilege.

But that single-minded dedication to power and privilege can backfire. Just like the Labour party, Kantor doesn’t care about facts, logic or objective reality. Labour pursued increased power in Scotland and ended up wiping themselves out. Kantor’s meddling in Europe may not deliver the neo-Stalinist tyranny he hopes for.