10 Reasons to Stop Using Internet Porn

Thinking about ‘wacking one off’ to the internet’s vast quantity of Jew-porn? Think again……

no-porn

I know, we’ve all been there, done that (males). We were all teenagers once upon a time, but really, is wacking it to porn a decent healthy thing to do:

From Bold & Determined:

By Victor Pride

We could be PC and pretend masturbating and internet porn don’t exist, but they do. And there is a very big problem with internet porn. Internet porn is a succubus whore from Hell intent on draining you of your vital seed, your testosterone, your energy, and your desire to succeed and conquer.

Or, to put it mildly, masturbating to internet porn does not do a body good. Internet porn is like a drug addiciton. The access to endless variety of porn causes your to constantly search for the “perfect” scene. This leads to massive overstimulation of the brain, the overstimulation causes a dopamine (dope) release into the brain (your fix). After you have an orgasm it’s like coming down off a drug. After all that excitement, that endless stimuli for the brain, your body just shuts off and you turn into a lazy piece of shit. How many times have you been about to do something, decided to just have a “quick one”, and by the end 30 minutes later had no motivation to do anything? I already know the answer: a lot.

Here are 10 reasons to stop masturbating to internet porn:

1) Internet porn saps you of precious energy – When you give up the porn and the endless masturbation sessions you have a lot more energy and drive. You want to get out and take care of business. You want to make money, you want to hit the weights, and you want to go and talk to that cute little blonde in the cereal aisle – and you just may have blueballs enough to do it.

2) Internet porn can lead to erectile dysfunction – Keep at it and eventually you will only be aroused by internet porn. Right now guys in their TWENTIES and even guys in their TEENS are having trouble getting hard without porn. They have to keep finding more and more disgusting and outrageous porn scenes to satisfy their hunger. Eventually nothing will do it but seeing a naked black man buttfucking a dog. That’s serious business. Keep up with the porn and it will happen to you too.

3) Internet porn will make you will want to stop having sex – Why bother with sex when you have every fantasy in the world available at one of your hands? Japan is a notoriously porn friendly country. Japan is saturated with porn. In Japan there is an entire culture of young guys called “Herbivores”. These herbivores have no desire for sex. All this porn and now the guys don’t want girls, they want sex with their hand, or sex with robots or nothing at all. Japan now has the lowest birthrate in the world. Can you see the connection?

4) After you stop masturbating to internet porn your voice may become deeper – Straight from the horses mouth, this is what guys who have stopped masturbating are saying happens.

5) After you stop masturbating to internet porn you will have more self control and will power – I’m telling you from personal experience you just plain feel better and stronger and more masculine. It’s the opposite feeling after masturbating to internet porn.

6) After you stop masturbating to internet porn your Testosterone will rise

7) After you stop masturbating to internet porn you will become calmer, more rational, and less anxious

8) You will become more attractive to women

9) You can stop getting viruses on your computer

10) If you can’t believe me, then take the word of these gentlemen who beat their addiction to internet porn and reaped the benefits – There are 90 pages worth of positive results.

Read More

An interesting read, and many valid points raised.

(By the way, I just looked down at the related content bit here in the WordPress screen and there’s nothing but pornographic images!! I didn’t ask for that!! Hahaha!)

– BDL1983

Nelson Mandela – Good Riddance, You Communist Criminal!

Here’s a few bits and pieces showing what a murderous bastard Nelson Mandela was:

Nelson-MandelaBastard
The old murderous bastard!

Nelson Mandela was the leader of the Umkontho We Sizwe (MK) – the terror wing of the ANC even whilst in prison.

By his own admission he had to okay every single terror attack MK launched. From his prison cell a sophisticated communication system he and his wife and other terrorist visitors developed allowed him to okay every terror attack in South Africa. He devloped the “soft target” strategy which said terror attacks should be aimed at the white civilian population in places where they would think themselves safe.

One of his most awful attacks occurred on 23 December 1985 at Amanzimtoti’s Wimpy Bar. To sketch the background. The Southern Hemisphere summer is when you folks in the Northern Hemisphere have your winter so our summer holidays coincide with Christmas and traditionally this is the very busiest holiday season. The little town of Amanzimtoti is on the Natal south coast which has verdant forests, a balmy climate, and pristinbe beaches dotted with several small holiday towns that exist solely for the influx of holidayers. The Wimpy Bar is a franchise restaurant group which owns several diners all over the country so on holiday it is ultra popular.

Anyway on 23 December 1985, in the middle of summer holidays at a popular diner in a holiday town the ANCs terrorists under instructions of Mandela set off a limpet mine inside the restaurant. Five people were killed (three children aged 2,8 and 5) and over 200 injured. There are pictures here but they are not for the faint hearted and they will break your heart. The actual perpetrators were hunted down. Two refused to surrender and were killed in a police shootout… the other, Andrew Zondo, was captured and after a fair trial where overwhelming evidence was presented against him sentenced to death and in 1987 he hanged at Pretoria’s Central Prison.

Mandela never apologized for okaying the brutal murder of civilians including three children.

In 2010 the ANC renamed one of the holiday streets in Amanzimtoti Andrew Zondo Avenue

Mandela is scum and his death will be welcomed by Boers.

The joke here is that he is clinging so desperately to life because he knows where he is going and he doesn’t want to go…

Read More

african national congress
The flag of the communist criminal organisation known as the African National Congress

A report sent by South African historical expert living in the United States:

1) Concerning Mandela’s jail sentence. The crimes he committed were shamelessly criminal, and included no heroic acts. In fact, it is still a mystery why Percy Yutar (the then state attorney) did not file for murder, but manslaughter instead. Based on the facts it is commonly agreed by legal scholars that Mandela would have been hanged if Yutar filed for murder. You can easily get access to the case and you will find facts that the media, for whatever reason, prefer to ignore.

2) They often show Mandela’s cell on Robben Island. That is not where he spent most of his time. He later lived in a house under so-called “arrest”. It was comfortable if not luxurious, and most people work every day of their lives for the privilege to live in something not nearly as good as that. Why do they never show photographs of that?

3) What is really mind-boggling is the fact that while he was in the “house jail” he had free access, on account of the S.A. tax-payers, to telephone, fax and other communicating facilities to organize the ANC. That is why he was still the leader when he was “released”.

4) You already know of the terrible deeds he ordered for his own people who disappointed him. He has many murders of his own on his hands.

5) He was supposedly in “jail” for 20 or more years. One would expect that he had a negligible income in that time. Yet when he and his wife were divorced about 4 years after his “release” he had to pay her millions in settlement. Where did these millions come from? Who else could earn millions in 4 years from a salaried job after taxes? Obviously something is seriously wrong. You find out where all that money came from and you will discover a lot about Mandela that the press never report.

6) Once he left “jail” (the house the government provided) he moved into a very luxurious home in one of the richest suburbs of Johannesburg. However, he kept a little four-room house in Soweto and pretended to live there. That is where he would interview reporters and where photographs were taken. What a liar and bigot. I cannot believe that the press did not know this. It simply played along to sell this falsehood of a hero and martyr. These are six leads that anyone from S.A. should be able to confirm easily with documentary proof. Mandela is a murderer and a liar. He only lived in “poverty” when it suited him. Just ask where he is presently living. There are very few Whites or other people that can, after a lifetime of working, afford the house he is living in now. Nonetheless, for some reason, I have no reason why, the media are ignoring all of this and misrepresent the actual situation.

Read More

SAfricaMap

Nelson Mandela’s bombs: Amanzimtoti 23 Dec 1985

Eye-witness account *

On the 23rd December 1985, I was with my Father, photo journalist Jo Toerien, in his studio in Amanzimtoti.  It was a hot summer’s  day, I was an 18 years old enjoying the coolness of the air-conditioned studio, casually chatting to him about an upcoming assignment.  I often accompanied my dad on some of his photo shoots. Our laughing and bantering was suddenly interrupted by a profound and heavy thud that made the windows shudder. Everything stood still, we both looked at each other bewildered and immediately his desk phone rang. It was brief conversation; he went white in the face,  slammed the phone down, grabbed his camera bag and bolted over to the Sanlam Shopping Centre.

“You  could already see the grey smoke enveloping the shopping mall and billowing into the streets.  He dashed off in between the crowds and the chaos, the local police were trying to cordon off the road and do crowd control; they knew him well and ushered him through. He recalls the odd smells, a mixture of wet cement and iron and almost like that smell you encounter on Guy Fawkes day. There was screaming, crying, the wailing of the engines of fire trucks, the voices that shouted and echoed off the walls.

“The blast had created a zig-zag effect on the internal structure. Then the reality of it all hit ….Bomb? what bomb, why?…. there were sheets of glass, bits of metal, his Nikon camera flashing into the darkness of the passages.

People were sliding in the blood…

“The blood lay everywhere, people were sliding in it. The smell of it was nauseating.  People were galvanized into action as they started to help others. 

“This was the day the name African National Congress became a name synonymous with cowardice, hatred and terrorism.   The people of this small coastal town’s reverie was knocked senseless that day. Blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds alike were affected by the senseless brutality.  This sickening act of the ANC did not encourage people to listen to their plight, instead it turned people against them, turned them into nothing but common criminals who felt nothing to murder innocent women and children.

  • Recently, the current ANC government, incited further hatred in the people of this once glittering jewel of the south coast by renaming a main road — Kingsway Road in Amanzimtoti — after the bomber to “Andrew Zondo Road”.  This 19 year old ANC militant member, was thankfully hung on the 9th September 1986.

The photos taken by my Father will always remind us of our bloody history and of the calibre of the men who now run this country.” (*Name withheld).

Read More

anc_rally
Savage “Jew-communist-led” ANC mob….

BNP leader Nick Griffin has sparked outrage with a series of tweets branding Nelson Mandela a “murdering old terrorist”.

The far-right politician also mocked the 94-year-old former South African president’s lung condition.

He wrote: “Saint #nelsonmandela on last legs it seems. Make sure to avoid BBC when the murdering old terrorist croaks. It’ll be nauseating.

“‘Statesmen’ must be judged on results not rhetoric. Before Mandela, South Africa was safe economic powerhouse. Now crime ridden basket case.

“No surprise #Mandela’s lungs are shot – all those burning tyres. Smoking necklaces very bad for the health.”

Mandela’s family gathered at his bedside on Saturday night after he was taken to hospital with a serious lung infection.

He is suffering from a recurrence of the condition which has put him in hospital three times since December .

Mandela served 27 years of a life sentence in prisons including the infamous Robben Island for sabotage and conspiracy against the oppressive South African Apartheid regime.

He was released in 1990 and was elected president of South Africa four years later in the country’s first free and fair elections.

What a complete bastard this Mandela character was! The whole world is fucking crazy isn’t it? Adolf Hitler is the greatest man to ever walk the planet and he is lied about and hated by the mainstream, whereas an ACTUAL murderous arsehole like Mandela is put up on a pedestal as a ‘great’ and ‘moral’ figurehead…… Just flip everything 180 degrees and you get the truth!

Also go and read Andre’s article about the ol’ commie “Saint Nelson Mandela”!

– BDL1983

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

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

Final Thoughts on the 9-11 No-Planes Issue

After listening to the “debate” with “Mike Delaney & Scott Roberts versus John Friend & Tom in CT”, I am now certain that the 9-11 No-Planes Theory & September Clues are both completely bunk. After watching September Clues it’s clear to me that none of it makes any sense. There is no reason for the Jews to have turned New York into a giant movie set in order to carry out 9-11, nor is there any way they could have done this and gotten away with it, without thousands of New Yorker’s noticing something strange that day. The whole Simon Shack scenario is so bizarre that, like Scott Roberts said, the official story of 19 Arab Hijackers is far more plausible. Think about it. Just because the Jews own the TV doesn’t mean that normal people in New York “all of a sudden” were completely incapable of recognising or bearing eyewitness to something fishy, like Jews filming a 9-11 movie.

The only valid concept put forward by the “No Plane” crowd is that of “Media Fakery“. Video footage can be faked, digitally altered, superimposed, etc. They could have used faked videos, but there was really no reason when they could film the real thing! Dov Zakheim – Systems Planning Corporation – remote control planes – fly into towers – and there you go.

This is Simon Shack:

Jew or not Jew. Given his 'Jewy look' and role as chief disseminator of the September Clues disinfo film, I say 'Jew'!
Jew or not Jew? Given his ‘Jewy look’ and role as maker of the September Clues disinfo film, I say ‘Jew’!
Smug Khazars Max Konrardy (Hoi Polloi) & Simon Hytten, AKA Simon Shack, Social Service; enough said.
Simon Hytten AKA Simon Shack & Max Konrardy (Hoi Polloi)….. Yeah, they’re Jews…

Regarding the “debate” itself; it wasn’t much of a debate. It was basically Mike and Scott telling it like it is, and to hell with everyone and everything else. I firmly believe that Mike’s film ‘Missing Links’ is spot on, and the only 9-11 documentary worth watching, so I can understand Mike’s fierce defence of its rock-solid thesis. John Friend was barely given a chance to state his case, therefore the whole thing was completely unfair to him. For a “debate” to be done right, it needs a moderator, especially when both sides are likely to get heated! Tom in CT surprised me with how well he explained the “Media Fakery/ Psyop” aspects of 9-11 (or any given case), whilst agreeing with Mike and Scott’s underlying theme of always exposing the Jew and looking at the bigger picture.

Finally, this point should have been raised, but it wasn’t:

  • Ken Feinberg ran a victims compensation fund of $7 billion. 97% of victims’ families took the money and waived their right to demand a real investigation into 9-11. Why bother with a compensation fund if there were no real victims?

That fact alone is a smoking gun. It tells us that the Jews clearly knew there were going to be real victims AND that the reason for a lack of victim’s family members demanding real answers is because the Jews put up irresistibly high sums of money as compensation to keep their mouths shut.

I stand by my earlier article about this issue. It sums up what I think and it’s the truth. I don’t really care to investigate this topic anymore; I’m done with it.

Hopefully there’s no bitterness between John Friend, Mike Delaney and Scott. It was a necessary thrashing out of the issue. It’s done now, so everyone can get back to focusing on what matters: The White Race and defeating the eternal Jew! (Anyone who can’t work that last bit out isn’t worth a pinch of shit)

– BDL1983

White Self-Hate: Master-Stroke Of The Enemy

George Lincoln Rockwell
American Nazi Party
From back in the 1960’s…..

Last week I penetrated into the “South” for the first time in more than five years of speaking at colleges. I spoke at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It was a shocking – and unpleasant-experience!

Since last September, when I spoke at Harvard, I have been having such incredible success speaking all across the country, everywhere EXCEPT the South, that I was beginning to believe ALL America’s college youth was waking up, especially to the nigger problem.

I had never penetrated the really “deep” South, for what reasons I am still not sure. I have had few invitations from South of Virginia – and all of them have been cancelled.

Around the rest of the country, this year has been one of immense gratification to me, speaking from Harvard and Brown in New England, across the nation through Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, California – just about everywhere EXCEPT the “deep South.” The reaction to my speeches, as those who have heard the record or tapes of some of them will know, has been FANTASTIC! The violence has almost stopped, even the boos and the hisses have died down, and the audience reactions have been SO favorable that even the Jew papers in Minneapolis, for instance, reported I got “thunderous applause”!!!

Not only that, but the INDIVIDUAL reactions have been unbelievable!

Most remarkable of all is the tremendous change which has occurred since last summer in the reactions of these college kids to NEGROES.

For years, I was plagued by the ignorance of Northerners on the subject of niggers – and the same kind of ignorance by many Southerners about Jews. They have plenty of niggers in the South, so the Southerners know about them. But they have few Jews, and the ones they have down South are usually “tame” Jews, utterly unlike the wild and hateful Hebrews swarming in the streets of the North and West.

At the same time, the Jew-wise “Yankees” in North and West never got CLOSE to any “coloreds”, and knew almost nothing about them. Until the riots began.

Back in those days, whenever I went to jail in the North, the cops would privately say “You’re doing a great job on the damned Jews, but why do you go after the ‘colored’?” – as they used to call them.

Down South, cops would say “God bless you for the way you’re fighting the niggers, but what have you got against the Jews?”

This year, all across the Northern part of America, and all over the West and South West, I found the people are growing rapidly more alert not only to the Jewish problem, which they always sensed, but are thoroughly aware – and worried – about the “coloreds”, because, of course, the “coloreds” have finally let the Northerners SEE what they are like, at first hand, in the dozens of riots and the endless horror of nigger crime and terrorism in the city streets.

The success of my speeches in colleges and universities across most of America has been gratifying – and spectacular – fantastic! If even the liberal KIDS in these colleges are waking up, you can IMAGINE the way the working masses are ready to FIGHT!

While I have been speaking sometimes as often as six and seven times per week all over the continent, I have naturally presumed that when I finally DID get a chance to speak in the real SOUTH – it would be the best of all – a real triumph!

So I approached Wake Forest in North Carolina with my hopes up – and my guard down!

When I got there, things seemed SUPER relaxed. Usually, the campus where I am to speak is in a state just short of explosion – with threats, counter-threats, headlines, etc., etc. There are vast crowds outside the hall, hours before the address, and the hall is always packed to the point where the fire marshall often takes a hand.

But at Wake Forest, there was no crowd outside, when I came to the hall. And when I got inside, although they said it was the biggest crowd yet, there were several hundred empty seats!

Believe it or not, I HAVE NOT SEEN AN EMPTY SEAT IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS OF SPEAKING.

All of this got me “off balance” sufficiently so that I failed to follow my usual routine of insisting on only WRITTEN questions (to prevent emotional outbursts and speeches from the floor). But I figured that an audience of SOUTHERN kids would be wild with enthusiasm when I defended the great White Race and the history and traditions of their own grandparents.

What I ran into was something NEW!

In speeches everywhere else, there are always overtones of threat and violence, heckling and possibilities of mobs, etc.

All seemed quiet when I began to speak at Wake Forest.

But the minute I opened my mouth, the place busted wide open! American flags started to wave – HELD BY COONS! A Jew got up with a black armband and began marching up and down the aisles. Some of the kids acted like a bunch of kooks, whooping and cheering this disorder.

An old Jewess rose and began screaming at me in unintelligible “English”. She got a huge round of cheers and applause!

In spite of all this, I managed to take control of the crowd as I have been forced to learn to do, and speak for about forty-five minutes. But I never did succeed in getting a train of thought started with the audience. Always, they managed to bust up any orderly presentation, and I had to keep using shouts and “tricks” to beat the heckling.

There was no applause at the end of my speech, although a few kids tried feebly, only to be squelched by their neighbors.

I made the mistake of taking live questions from the audience (being somewhat angered and frustrated by now, and hoping to beat these hellraisers). That did it!

One huge Negro walked up to the front of the hall just before my platform, held up his hands and signalled for silence. He got it!

The hall was hushed, FOR THE FIRST TIME, and I knew from experience what came next.

Had that Negro done nothing more than say “abracadabra”, he would have been drowned in enthusiasm. He did a masterful job – whether planned or not, I don’t know.

I had pointed out in my speech that ghetto Negroes were often in good physical shape because they were forced to do menial physical work such as garbage men, etc. This was not to insult Negroes. (Actually, it makes a lot of my own people mad when I point this out). But it is part of the reason the blacks think they can whip us because they say we’ve gotten soft. The big black used my statement to make appear I had advocated making nothing but garbage men out of all Negroes.

“Maybe all we’re good for is garbage men”, he said, “but if being garbage men is all the contribution America will let us make, then we’ll make it, we’ll BE garbage men!”

The audience rose, first the rabid ones, then more and more, until finally the hall was a sea of hysterical cheering, as the Negro (who I later learned was the local football hero) led the rest of the football team in a “walk-out”.

None DARED fail to rise for this mad scene, for fear of being branded a “hater”, as the arc-lights and TV cameras swept the audience.

I did my best to plug on, and succeeded to some degree. I even managed to get a good round of applause at the end, myself.

But I was bitterly disappointed to see all this take place in my FIRST speech in part of the “deep South”!

I had been winning rabid, liberal “Yankees” over with a “Southern” speech in the North all year. Now here I was being swamped by a wave of wild, hysterical “nigger-loving” – by SOUTHERNERS! Or so I thought!

I spent more than ten more hours at banquets and seminars, cocktail parties, and the other usual accompaniments to these speeches, and then, after I finally got to bed at 2 a.m., I laid awake for two more hours before I reached any kind of conclusion as to what it was all about.

At the banquet, the speaker was none other than Dick Gregory. I had to sit up at the head table only two seats away from this coon comedian-turned-revolutionist. I wouldn’t have put up with it, except I really wanted to hear this “cat” (as he calls everybody) and see how he would affect these kids in North Carolina! He did a pretty smooth job on these kids, and I learned a lot.

First, he told a series of “supper-club” jokes to “warm up” the kids – which he did.

Then he launched into his “You-gotta-give-us-the-country, Baby” approach of the black scum now risen to glory among us as a result of Yiddish money, Yiddish leadership and Yiddish press-agentry for these miserable Africans.

I could hardly believe what I saw there. I watched the racially fine faces of the young White boys and girls who were intently watching the ape-like face of Gregory. They were hypnotized!

He actually went so far as to BOAST to them that the only way they could PROVE they were not full of “racism” and “hate” was to give our White women to the Negroes, thus showing that we recognize that there’s no difference except color.

He went so far as to use the fact of motherhood, and went into a physical description of the process of birth, and how you couldn’t stop delivery of a baby by crossing a woman’s legs, etc.,etc., ad nauseam – all to “prove” that delivery of our women to the blacks was “inevitable” – and standing in the way was like crossing the woman’s legs, and trying to stop the birth of what he said was “Nature’s insistence on equality”!!!

He got a STANDING OVATION – just as the earlier black ball player had in the audience!

Once more, I watched the fanatic few rise up applauding wildly the moment he was done speaking, then the guilty looks on the faces of more and more kids who rose up, until all (except me) were standing to give honor to a man who had just announced he was going to utterly DESTROY them – women and children and our whole RACE!

I had HEARD about this sort of thing happening – just last month as I was speaking at one college in Wisconsin, Stokely Carmichael was speaking only a few miles away at another. He got up and hollered, “BLACK POWER!”, and openly announced his intention of leading a “burn-baby-burn” ATTACK on White people, hollering “Get Whitey!” – and got the same “standing ovation”, as I had just seen twice in one day, and in the “deep South”!! WHY?

In all of history, no people have ever sunk so low they have given cheers and ovations to their own executioners. Some people have become too rotten to resist, but no people ever before has sunk so low as have those of our people who stand and cheer when told by arrogant Negroes that the blacks fully intent to WIPE US OUT AS A RACE!

The blacks holler, “GET WHITEY!” – and WHITEY CHEERS AND APPLAUDS! Surely you, too, must have tried to figure it all out!

Lying there in bed in the Sheraton Motel in Winston-Salem, in the fancy room they always get for you on these visits, I think I found the answer: GUILT! – Self HATE!

The South has been BEATEN half to death, over a hundred years ago, now, and it has its psychological toll.

Read More

G.L.R. – He certainly had his finger on the pulse, even back in the 60’s…. Now, we are about 50 years down the track….. He saw it all back then, so why the hell is our White Race still in it’s slumber?

Wake up, then “Stand Up and FIGHT“! (as Rockwell would have said)

– BDL1983