True Heroes Never Die!

The world should have listened. He was right!

The world should have listened. He was right!

On the 20th April 1889, a child was born in the Austro-Hungarian border town of Braunau am Inn. His name was Adolf Hitler and he would go on to become one of the most inspirational and significant figures in all of history. No amount of lies and slander directed against this great man will ever change the fact that he was right.

He changed the world in his time.

His spirit will change the world in the future.

His mission is not complete….

Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!

And in case you haven’t seen what Adolf Hitler was really about, you better watch this:

And this:

Heil Hitler! 88

– BDL1983

Christogenea Saturdays with Bill Finck (18/4/15)

christswastika.png

After corresponding with Bill for about a year or so I finally appeared on his radio program this morning (Saturday night in the US). It was a good show and I think we hit a number of good topics including the biggest lie of all-time, namely that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People”. They are of course Satan’s children through Cain, and it must be said: the Jews are doing a damn good job of fulfilling their role of ‘pure evil’ in the world. Their Canaanite/Edomite blood ensures they obey their father, the devil. Will the pure White Adamic people ever realize who they truly are?

Download Show

Yep, that's the Jews alright....

Yep, that’s the Jews alright….

– BDL1983

Radio Stormer: Unity in the Face of Invasion

Daily Stormer
April 18, 2015

Unity in the face of a shared enemy.

Unity in the face of a shared enemy.

Brett Light co-hosts with Sven Longshanks in a program looking at the invasion of White countries and the need for unity.

Explanation for the downtime on the site is given, as well as encouragement to support each other in our struggle.

The recent 400 drowned African invaders are mentioned and how before the vessel sank, one half of the crew were throwing the other half over the side anyway.

Also covered is the double standards shown by politicians, in asking children questions and then dismissing the answer when it is not the one expected.

The program ends on an upbeat note, with news of a White man running all the way round the world solo and Brett exhorting people to get up and do something.

Originally broadcast on the Radio Stormer live stream.

Download Show

This was a rather energetic show considering I was knackered…. But it was Friday night and that’s always a good time to let off a bit of steam!

– BDL1983

Radio Stormer: Report from ‘Reclaim Australia’ at Adelaide

Daily Stormer
April 5, 2015

Picture from official ‘Reclaim Australia’ website.

Picture from official ‘Reclaim Australia’ website.

Fresh from the ‘Reclaim Australia’ rally at Adelaide, Brett Light reports on the day’s events including:

What sort of people were there, Patriots, Nationalists or both?

What the speeches were like

How the people at the rally far outnumbered the untermenschen protesting it

Why it is important to go to demonstrations, even when they are not explicitly racial

How the Police treated the Reclaimers

Adelaide is one of the more heavily colonised areas in Australia and holding this rally there has been seen as a great success for Patriots.

Download Show

I’m pretty sure the show turned out a lot better than previous ones due to my new microphone working brilliantly! I can actually listen to my own voice now and not want to puke… Haha!

– BDL1983

The RAD Leader’s Dagger

I now own a replica RAD Leader’s Hewer dagger courtesy of a friend at work. Here’s a picture I took of it and a bit of background information on the dagger:

My replica RAD Hewer - Nice!

My replica RAD Hewer – Nice!

Reichs Labour Service (Reichsarbeitsdienst [RAD])

Formed in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s by its leader, Konstantin Heirl, for the purpose of eliminating the mass unemployment existing among the youth of Germany.

Every young German male was required to serve a period of six months in the RAD prior to joining the Army. The men lived in camps and were trained in drill, marching, and digging, but were not armed. The organisation may be compared to the U.S. Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) Program instituted in this country at the same time to combat the unemployment problem. By 1939 the RAD had 360,000 men in service that were organised and administered by a small number of permanent full time staff.

With the onset of war in 1939, the RAD members were given military training and subsequently, transferred directly into the National Socialist Armed Forces. During the war, RAD members were called upon to level roads and airfields, clear away rubble, repair damaged railways, collect captured war material, and generally perform manual labour in the occupied territories.

In 1943 the RAD was armed and militarised and operating through out occupied territories. To show how important the RAD became to the war effort, Adolf Hitler awarded the German Order to Konstantin Heirl, the second recipient of Germany’s highest award.

Dagger Information –RAD Leader’s Hewer

The RAD Leaders Hewer was issued for wear to permanent officers of the rank of Feldmeister or above in December 1937. The Hewer was designed by Paul Casburg and was more dagger like than the RAD EM Hewer in its being very light weight.

The Hilt took the form of a stylised eagles head pommel and was made of a low-grade aluminium.

The grip plates were plastic and are found in white 95% of the time, orange grip plates are very seldom encountered but when they are its 99.99% of the time found on a R.H. Herder or WKC made daggers. Real ivory grip plates were also offered and are extremely rare to find I have only found one dagger with them in over 40 years.

The cross guard had the RAD organisation spade emblem at its centre the hilt should not be confused with more than one part as the hilt is one piece. There is an area at the centre base of the crossguard where the blades tang inserts into the hilt where there is a bar with a hole drilled to slip the grip screw through to hold the hilt together. The hilt has an anodised silver finish that can range from bright silver to a dull silver look. The recessed areas have a dark burnish polish added then a clear lacquer finish. Very late made WKC daggers I have observed had NO anodised finish and were just polished aluminium with the burnishing and clear lacquer.

Read More

Here’s an authentic one. Note the price – $2,795 USD!

RAD-11678d

They sure are well crafted! Imagine how good it would be to have an authentic SS dagger ($3,250 USD):

SSDagger

– BDL1983

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5

Note: I’m REPOSTING this article because bugger-all White Australians know about the Jewish role in disposing of the White Australia Policy. White Australians – memorise the Jewish names mentioned so you can rattle them off when quizzed on the subject. (People listen if you actually know what you’re talking about… well, they might…..)

From The Occidental Observer:

By Brenton Sanderson

Results from the 2011 Australian Census reveal that, for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”

In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration. The driving force behind this totally undemocratic shift in policy was the Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism that Kevin MacDonald documented in The Culture of Critique. For those aware of the pivotal role of Jews in driving the demographic and cultural transformation of the United States, the story of the Jewish role in radically reengineering Australian society will have a depressingly familiar ring to it.

Australia was the last habitable continent settled by Europeans. In 1901 the British colonies of Australia federated to form an independent nation. The first Act passed by the new federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which, through imposing a dictation test in any European language (usually English), effectively barred non-White immigration to Australia. Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, Australia remained an unashamedly White Christian nation with a strong Anglo-Celtic ethnic base. Indeed the long-running (now defunct) news magazine The Bulletin maintained the slogan “Australia for the White Man” on its masthead until 1961. By 1947 the non-European population, other than Aborigines, was measured at 0.25 per cent of the total. As a result of the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia had become, by this time, one of the Whitest countries in the world. Ian Cook makes the point that “The ‘White Australia’ policy was a fairly self-conscious and explicit attempt to protect a particular genetic inheritance from being diluted by other genetic lines.”[i] The policy was extraordinarily successful in this endeavor, and the historian Eric Richards observes that, in retrospect, it is extraordinary that so remote a settlement could maintain such a homogeneous population composition.[ii]

Australia and New Zealand were also the two most “British” societies outside the United Kingdom, and Australia was, proportionately, the most Irish society outside Ireland. The imperial loyalties of the Australian colonists were often explained by reference to the “crimson thread of kinship” that existed between Britain and Australia. Australian identity was founded upon three distinct yet interrelated components: racial Whiteness, “Britishness,” and “Australianness.”[iii] The attempted Japanese invasion of northern Australia in WWII proved that the longstanding fear of an Asian invasion (the “Yellow Peril”) was far from the neurotic, xenophobic anxiety disparaged by today’s politically correct historians. In the 1960s there was no popular movement for ending the White Australia policy, a policy that had retained the bipartisan support of Australia’s political class since its inception in 1901. Indeed, Richards notes that “Australia’s adherence to ‘Whiteness’ was its defining characteristic,” and that “None of the other great immigrant countries was able to sustain such a degree of homogeneity.”[iv] Hawkins makes the point that

the primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin. … Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work to build the foundations of urban and rural life. … The idea that other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts, might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts, was anathema.[v]     

Tied in with these natural and legitimate expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity, were concerns hordes of non-White immigrants would drive down the wages and living standards of White Australians. This was a key part of the original rationale for the White Australia policy as articulated by Alfred Deakin, Australia’s first Attorney-General, who argued that

a white Australia does not by any means just mean the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the multiplying of homes, so that we may be able to defend every part of our continent; it means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means equal laws and opportunities for all; it means protection against underpaid labour of other lands, it means the payment of fair wages. A white Australia means a civilisation whose foundations are built on healthy lives, lived in honest toil, under circumstances which imply no degradation; a white Australia means protection.”[vi]  

An analogous view had been expressed as early as 1841 by James Stephen, the powerful head of the British colonial office in London, who declared that Australia should be a land “where the English race shall be spread from sea to sea unmixed with any lower caste.” He maintained that the introduction of Indian “coolies” into New South Wales would “debase by their intermixture the noble European race… bring with them the idolatry and debasing habits of their country… beat down the wages of poor laboring Europeans… [and] cut off the resource for many of our own distressed people.”[vii] Charles Pearson, a British scholar who migrated to the colonies in the late nineteenth century, published a book entitled National Life and Character in 1893. In it, he described Australia as “an unexampled instance of a great continent that has been left for the first civilized people that found it to take and occupy. He warned, nevertheless, that it was still questionable whether the white races would be able to hold on to it in the face of the Asiatic threat:

We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman and Australian alone, but the whole civilized world, that will be the losers.[viii]

Such concerns echoed through the decades of the White Australia policy, where the country explicitly defined its nationhood in terms of Whiteness and a policy of economic protectionism designed to benefit the entire group by preventing, say, Australian capitalists from importing cheap labor that would undercut the standard of living of other White Australians. The policy reflected the desire of Australians to build a strong and prosperous society founded upon the principles of racial and cultural homogeneity and fairness within the racial group. Gwenda Tavan notes that the White Australia policy was a “morally imbued affirmation of the type of society Australians wanted to build: white and British-Australian as well as cohesive, conformist, liberal-democratic and egalitarian.”[ix] One commentator reflected this view when noting in 1939 that “The Australian prides himself on his high standard of living; he wishes to do nothing that will endanger it. Neither does he wish to bring into being a colour problem such as he sees in South Africa.”[x]

 

Early twentieth century Australian poster

Rather than being driven by any shift in public opinion, the impetus for the progressive dismantling of the White Australia policy, and the move from assimilation to multiculturalism between 1966 and 1975 came “from a small group of reformers that began appearing in some Australian universities in the 1960s” who, like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, soon comprised a hostile intellectual, academic and media elite who “developed a sense of being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against Australian parochial non-intellectuals as an outgroup.”[xi] In the changing ideological climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the moral foundations of Australia’s British history were subjected to radical criticism, and once foundational patriotic works like Keith Hancock’s Australia (with its maxim that “among the Australians pride of race counted for more than love of country”) were no longer compulsory reading for students. [xii]

Boasian anthropology and the fall of White Australia

The Boasian ideology of racial egalitarianism (discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as a Jewish intellectual movement) was a critical weapon in opening Australian immigration up to non-White groups. Jewish academic Jon Stratton notes that the dismantling of the White Australia policy and the ultimate adoption of multiculturalism was a direct result of “internal and external pressures related to a general turning away from biological racialism.”[xiii] The Australian Jewish academic Andrew Markus articulates the standard critique of “white racism” that became prominent in the 1960s when he asserts that it was based on the notion that

(i) as a result of some (undefined) “natural” process, national groups (or ‘races’ or ‘cultures’) have inborn (‘essential’) qualities which will never alter; and (ii) there are inherent characteristics in such groups which interpose barriers against harmonious co-existence, not least against interbreeding of populations. Such ideas give rise to closed forms of nationalism which restrict membership to those qualified by birth or descent, in contrast to open forms which grant citizenship to individuals on the basis of residence and adherence to the governing principles of the nation. They justified European colonial rule; the denial of basic human rights and citizenship; segregation in the workplace, housing and education; and policies of genocide culminating in the “factories of death” established in the period of Nazi domination of continental Europe. Rarely challenged in western societies prior to 1940, the idea of biological racial difference lost much of its legitimacy in the aftermath of the Holocaust.[xiv]

It is obvious from this statement just how closely acceptance of the myth of racial equality from the 1960s onwards was bound up with Jewish post-Holocaust ethno-political activism. Note also the outright lies and hypocrisy in the above paragraph. The “(undefined) ‘natural’ process” that Markus claims is the wholly irrational basis for “racism” is the very well-defined process of human evolution itself. The differential evolution of human groups in response to selection pressures imposed by diverse environments, resulted, after thousands of years, in differences in external morphology and psychological traits—including intelligence as measured by IQ tests. The average intelligence of a group will profoundly influence the society that will be created by that group. There is nothing undefined, irrational, or pseudo-scientific about this whatsoever.

Professor Andrew Markus: Propagating “noble lies”

In his description of “closed” forms of nationalism which restrict “membership to those qualified by birth or descent” Markus could be describing traditional Judaism, with its strict endogamy and built-in assumptions of Jewish racial, intellectual and moral superiority. As always, however, Judaism is outside the critical frame of reference of such reflexively anti-White Jewish intellectuals. Jewish ethno-nationalism (exemplified in Israel’s racially restrictive immigration laws) is tacitly held to be legitimate and uncontroversial (indeed a moral imperative), while White nationalism is inherently illegitimate and morally corrupt.

The rampant hypocrisy of this is particularly striking given that Australian Jews have “been at the forefront of support for the right of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, to determine its own security agenda, and to do what is needed to ensure its own survival.”[xv]  Indeed, the academic and Australian Jewish activist Danny Ben Moshe points out that Australian Jewry is fiercely Zionist and “outdoes all other Diasporas in their commitment to Israel.” A 1993 survey of Melbourne Jewry found that 63 per cent had visited Israel with over 40 per cent having done so two or more times. This is compared with 36 per cent of American Jews. Australia also has the highest rate of aliyah in the world.[xvi] While strongly in favor of non-White immigration and racial-mixing among the non-Jews in Australia, a publication like the Australian Jewish News can openly express the view that for Jews, “Intermarriage has always been and will always be an individual, spiritual and communal tragedy. No amount of petty rationalising will ever change that.”[xvii]

Noting the incredible hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning white racialism while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel (and traditional Jewish prohibitions against intermarriage), Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that:

Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. …  A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.[xviii]  

Since the academic world is international and hierarchical, it was inevitable that intellectual movements originating in elite American universities spread throughout the West (see “Liberal Bias in Academia: The role of Jewish academics in the creation and maintenance of academic liberalism“) As a consequence of the growing influence of the Jewish intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique, and direct Jewish activism in Australia, “Such views [i.e. the assumption racial equality] became standard within schools and universities and provided the intellectual basis for campaigns against racial discrimination in the late 1950s and 1960s.”[xix] Tavan notes that: “As a result of these shifts, universities in particular became ‘hotbeds of resistance’ to White Australia during the late 1950s and early 1960s. … The emergence of a body of Marxist-inspired social theory in Europe and the United States at that time also reinvigorated radical left-wing political theory in Australia.” For Tavan, the new critical theory of the Frankfurt School “played a crucial role in exposing the racist underpinnings of many of Australia’s key institutions and values.”[xx] The Frankfurt School abandoned the White working class because they were insufficiently radical and had succumbed to fascism in Germany and Italy. This caused them to reject the orthodox Marxist emphasis on class struggle, replacing it by advocating non-White immigration and multiculturalism, as well as recruiting Whites who had complaints against the traditional culture, particularly feminists and sexual minorities, into a new coalition of the left.

With the adoption in 1963 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, member governments were urged to eliminate racial discrimination from their society altogether. Internal intellectual currents were thus augmented by mounting external political opposition to the White Australia policy, especially during the years of European decolonization in Africa and Asia. Eric Richards notes how

Prime Minister Menzies [1949-1966] was increasingly vexed by the intrusion of racial and immigration issues at meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Menzies (and even more vehemently, one of his successors, John Gorton) loathed the way in which he was lectured on the “principle of racial equality” by newcomer members of the Commonwealth. Menzies and Gorton [1968-1971] believed that Australia’s immigration policy was perfectly defensible and, in any case, none of their business. But the die was already cast. Australia in the 1960s felt pressure from within and from beyond, and its immigration policy was a growing embarrassment.[xxi]    

Senior Australian public servants serving on a committee formed to respond to the changed situation agreed in 1964 that “there was an urgent need to remove, as far as practicable, instances of racial discrimination in Australia in order to ensure Australia’s international reputation and influence are not to be seriously endangered.”[xxii] In response to these internal and external pressures, the administrative apparatus of the White Australia policy was gradually dismantled from the mid-1960s, until, in 1974, the then Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam (1972-1975), declared in a speech that: “On Immigration, we have removed the last remaining pieces of legislation which could be described as discriminatory on racial grounds.”[xxiii]

According to the Australian academic and multicultural activist Bronwyn Hinz, this policy change merely formalized shifts in policy approach that had begun in the 1960s in response to reforms to the United States migration policy.[xxiv] Richards observes that this “hesitating shift towards a non-discriminatory Australia” triggered “a social and demographic revolution” in Australia[xxv] In both America and Australia, Jewish intellectual movements and political activism were pivotal in driving this revolution. The national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges this, noting that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The exact nature of this crusade will be explored in subsequent parts of this essay. 

Source Article & References

Part 2 of 5 – The History of Judaism in Australia –

Part 3 of 5 – Walter Lippmann – The Jewish architect of Australian Multiculturalism

Part 4 of 5 – Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia and the Jewish response

Part 5 of 5 – Jewish anti-White activism and Australia’s Aborigines

An absolutely irrefutable, superb series of articles proving why we say it’s the Jews behind our “multicultural” woes in Australia.

– BDL1983

AFL set to launch “Gay Pride” game….

Two or three years back I said that this would be next in the AFL…. Well, it seems my prediction has come true! Oh deary, deary me….

From The Herald Sun:

GayFL - Oh great, this will please the masses.....

GayFL – Oh great, this will please the masses…..

AN AFL gay pride game to tackle homophobia has been added to the football calendar.

The Herald Sun can reveal footy’s first “Pride Cup” match will be played between Sydney and Fremantle during this month’s NAB Challenge.

There are plans for a permanent fixture celebrating sexual diversity during the AFL premiership season.

St Kilda is at the front of the queue to own the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex concept.

League chiefs ticked off the Swans and Dockers clash this week after a push by major sponsor NAB.

The 50m arc, goalpost pads and goal umpire flags will be decorated in rainbow colours to celebrate the match.

The AFL already devotes home-and-away rounds and matches to denouncing racism and celebrating indigenous and multicultural communities but has previously baulked at a themed game aimed at stamping out homophobia.

“The AFL is proud to be hosting this game, and in doing so we are saying to our community that we want to be part of change in Australia,” AFL football operations manager Mark Evans said.

“Diversity and inclusion is essential to our game. We say ‘no matter who are, where you are from or who you love, we can all love footy’.”

Read More

Related Article

I just had to post this story because it’s so funny picturing all these heterosexual (supposedly) men going along to the football watching rainbow fucking goal flags and 50m arcs!! An absolutely sick joke, but actually not a joke. What is a joke is society as a whole, and just you wait, they’ll find a way to put up with this shit because they won’t have anything else to do if they can’t go to the footy on the weekends!

– BDL1983

King Jew Netanyahu’s Full Speech to the US Congress (Plus Transcript)

Daily Stormer
March 4, 2015

Below is the full transcript of the evil Jew King Bibi Netanyahu’s speech to the US congress, which was given yesterday without the approval of the President of the United States.

Much analysis to come.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you…

(APPLAUSE)

… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.

My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…

(APPLAUSE)

… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You’re wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

END OF TRANSCRIPT.

“The Great Satan” is certainly an accurate description of Jewry, that’s for sure!

After reading that, if you can’t work out that Israel, i.e. Jews, control the US, then you are of very small intellect. Furthermore, if you acknowledge the first part that Jews control the US, but you can’t see that they control 95% of the rest of the world, barring a few Islamic enemies, then you are even dumber!

The thing the Jews have against Iran, who are threatening nobody at all, is that they want complete control over them too. Basically, the point of Bibi’s little trip to the US Congress is to tie up that loose end. They’ll deal with ISIS later, when they’ve outlived their usefulness destabilizing Syria (Assad being another Jewish enemy, coincidentally, of course), which is why Israel/Jewry were never worried about ISIS in the first place!

Israel have a ton of nukes, are known for slaughtering Palestinian children, along with endless aggression against anyone they say is their enemy, but, oh no, it’s never them held to account for their actions. If the UN (read Jew-N) passes some pathetic resolution against Izzy, they just ignore it because they know they already control the US and the so-called “International Community”, who would never seriously hold Israel to account.

Holohoax stuff & Osama Bin-Laden? If you don’t know about this stuff, well, I’m not going to spoon-feed it today. Do your own research. It’s all here somewhere on this site anyway.

It's now time to wake up to the Eternal Parasite and give him the boot!

It’s now time to wake up to the Eternal Parasite and give him the boot!

– BDL1983

Two’s Company, Three’s Allowed – Shaun Surplus & Me (1st March Edition)

Yesterday, after chatting to Shaun Surplus on Skype and having a few beers I decided to accept Shaun’s offer to be a guest on his show. It was 100% off-the-cuff and unplanned from my perspective, so it was a good thing that Shaun actually had some content ready for the show! It’s completely raw and with swearing, and a bit of ranting and raving!

Hopefully the show’s alright to listen to, despite me still using that fucking “NASAL” headset. I’ve got a quality mic now, but I couldn’t be bothered working out how to use it for this show, since it was impromptu and I had no time to suss it out!

On this edition of Two’s Company, Three’s Allowed, Shaun and his guest Brett speak about:

  • Miriam the douche bag and the bleeding “fart” labourals (liberal & labour)
  • Islam comes here for a better way of life and bring their barbarism
  • Baa baa rainbow sheep have you any wool and do you use the chalkboard
  • Slot machines owned predominantly by the corporate giant supermarkets
  • Indians are arrogant little bastards (and they smell)
  • People should read the Protocols
  • Street talks and the mob mentality
  • The idiot box AKA the hypnotist in the living room
  • A debate with Shaun wins a mans wife (WOT?)
  • jews own Hollywood (WOT?)
  • Shaun is Forest Gump, you just don’t know it yet

Download Show

Visit TCTA Unleashed

– BDL1983