Tag: United States

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

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

Jews concerned about Free Speech on the Internet

adl_comic

Surprise, surprise!!

In this article found on J-Wire, a Sydney-based Jew named David Singer, presents the Jewish community’s ‘concern‘ over people’s ability to express themselves freely on the internet. Freedom to say whatever you want, must be limited, because 5 poor innocent loving Jews were beaten up last week in Bondi. How dare anyone say anything that paints the Jewish community is a less-than-favourable light? Why, that is called ‘Hate‘, and according to the Jews we shouldn’t be allowed to express hatred. To tell the truth about this charming group is simply labelled ‘Hate’.

Just a little reminder to any Jews reading this: Article 19 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Just as a side-note: I am aware that all documentation and spoken word from any U.N. body referring to ‘human rights’, is actually referring only to Jews as humans, since according to the Talmud, we (the non-Jews) are beasts:

“The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.”
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

Let’s see what the Jews are whining about:

The Internet has become one of the major contributors to the growing spread of Jew-hatred and assaults on Jews world wide.

The senseless attack by a group of hooligans in Bondi, Sydney last week bashing five Jewish people – one a 62 years old woman – as they were walking home after enjoying a Sabbath meal with friends – has resulted in an outpouring of world-wide condemnation by politicians, the media, the public and other religious groups.

Yet it is only one of an increasing number of such similar assaults on Jews world-wide.

Jewish communities have for decades been required to place their synagogues, communal schools and organizations under 24 hour security surveillance.

The propensity of the Internet to become an uncontrolled vehicle for racial incitement has been allowed to escape under the radar. It is time that its capacity to so influence the minds of its readers was diminished.

What has become particularly disturbing is the ability of people to make whatever comments they like on the Internet without disclosing their full names and addresses to web editors when submitting their comments.

Newspapers require such details to be supplied – and only in exceptional circumstances will anonymous letters be published.

Why do Internet sites not demand the same standard of compliance?

Failure to do so has seen the publication of anonymous comments such as the following:

“The Jews will still occupy the West Bank and blockade Gaza and continue with their brutal, genocidal occupation. If the world were to be rid of the U.S. and Israel, there would be a chance of peace in our chaotic, conflicted world. Surely, anyone with half a brain can see that! 

Freedom of speech should not mean that people should enjoy freedom from prosecution or legal action for comments they make that defame people or groups of people or incite or are capable of inciting violence.

This would be a clear violation of Article 19, if the term ‘human rights‘ included the Goyim. It doesn’t, and it is only speaking of Jews as ‘human’. Back to the whining article:

Should the following comment have been allowed to be anonymously posted?

“Racist Israel is more than an abomination in the Middle East, it is a threat to the 7bn people it considers not to be racially “special”. Us.  All the more reason to stop keeping it alive, and to target it with overwhelming nuclear might if it retaliates against civilisation for refusing to back its play. The Zionists may be blinded by their belief that God will protect them. Nobody and nothing will.”

No doubt apologists will argue that objections can be lodged to delete offending comments – but its implementation inevitably leads to strident cries claiming censorship.

Securing the deletion of an objectionable comment also ignores the damage caused during the time that such comment has remained online before its removal.

These vile viewpoints – if authoritatively sourced – should be exposed to public gaze so that readers can understand the level and intensity of the hatred that exists – as exemplified in the following comment:

“Why should we [love Jews] given what they do to the Palestinians and have done since 1948? I don’t think that Jews are capable of love. Their religion gets in the road. Their god is loveless and punitive and so are they!”

Jews are not on their own in being singled out for such incessant abuse and vilification on the Internet………..

Read More

As you can see, the criticism of Jews and Israel (expressed in the example comments) is very tame, and essentially truthful. That’s what they’re worried about of course! They just keep on whining about it.

Here’s another related post from Destroy Zionism:

According to an article by the New York Post, the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), an anti-European Jewish organization, has found that more and more people criticize international Jewry online.

“There’s everything from mocking the legacy of Anne Frank [who died of typhus but has been expoited as a ‘Holocaust victim’ by Jews ever since], to getting young people to try to join in with a racist, extreme far-right [sic] group in the United States,” says Rabbi Abraham Cooper at the SWC.

Twitter generally avoids political censorship. Recently however, a Jewish student organization in France pressured Twitter into releasing personal details of thought criminals in France.

Read More

antijuden

– BDL1983

Identifying Where the Power Lies

What is it that determines whether or not someone is capable of understanding how political power works? What are the factors involved?

The main factors in my mind are intelligence, perception, mental courage, and critical thought. Varying degrees of natural ability exist in each person for using these faculties. For some reason, humans, as a species, are dangerously deficient when it comes to recognising and understanding how power works. As a life-long independent thinker, I’ve always found the ‘sheepish’ nature of people, or the ‘herd mentality’, to be immensely frustrating to deal with. It gets very irritating to see how the majority of people around you can live quite happily, completely oblivious to the ‘world political nightmare’ we are facing. If you are reading this, you probably already know that the ‘Jewish Agenda for World Domination’ is the only real problem facing the world, and that everything else is merely symptomatic.

The American Empire is simply the main engine, or 'Jew HQ' for World Domination.
The American Empire is simply the main engine, or ‘Jew HQ’ for World Domination.

Here’s how I analyse the situation:

A power structure always works in a ‘top-down’ fashion. This is just a basic fact of nature. Every species lives among its own kind, and among all the individuals who all have different traits, a pecking order will develop. This forms a hierarchical pyramid-shaped structure, and when the species is living exclusively (not including foreign invaders), it will be a natural, agreeable type of structure. When parasites, like Jews, are included in the structure, you get problems.

The eye at the top represents the Jew controlling everything
The eye at the top represents the Jew controlling everything

At this current juncture in history, we have a power structure of unprecedented size, operating and ruling over the entire ‘western world’. To identify the ‘hidden force’ behind things, I’ve always pictured the pyramid. The pyramid tells you that there must be a ‘Mr. Big’, who represents the force responsible for holding the power structure together. All you have to do, is work out who Mr. Big is! He must exist, or the power structure would fall apart, like a match-stick castle without glue.

As it turns out, Mr. Big is a collaborative effort of a certain (alleged) 2%, to rule everything. They are called Jews. The question remains; how do I know I am right? How can I be so certain?

This is the answer, and something I’ve always understood intuitively:

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you aren’t allowed to criticize.”

This quote has been attributed to Voltaire, but there’s some conjecture about whether it’s one of his. Either way, it always holds true!

To find out who you aren’t allowed to criticize, you must identify ‘taboo’ issues, forbidden topics, and anyone who is ‘holier than thou’. It’s pretty easy, when you put your mind to it. The Jews, Race, and the Holocaust, are never talked about in an open fashion in modern society. The Jews are ‘holier than thou’, while Race and the Holocaust are off the discussion table! Those facts alone, made me want to know why, and urgently! Once you crack the ‘Jews, Race, Holocaust’ trio, everything starts making sense. You also know for sure that you have hit the ‘nerve centre’ of the power structure! The ‘holy ones’ are not to be spoken badly of; therefore, we have identified Mr. Big of the pyramid!

cropped-holohoaxsign.jpg
The real sign in Hollywood

Jews are the rulers of the modern western world, and once you know that, it becomes child’s-play to tie every taboo issue back to them. Why can’t we discuss Race? Well, that’s because the Jews are out to destroy every race except theirs. Why can’t we discuss the Holocaust? It’s because if people understood that it’s a hoax, then the Jews could no longer hide behind their veil of persecution, and everyone would see the vampire for who he is! You can just keep on going down the line, exposing all the Marxist crap for what it is. Every taboo issue, where certain opinions are deemed unacceptable, will lead you back to the Jewish poison in our modern society. For example: equality, feminism, the fags, 9-11, global warming, wars in the middle east (for Israel), race, the Holocaust, etc. It’s always the Jews behind the poison, and you are not allowed to point the fact out (in public discourse anyway)!

It's everyone except the Jews
It’s everyone except the Jews

Why is it hard for some people to identify the real ruling power? It obviously is difficult for a lot of people. Forget the masses and consider how many people are out there chasing ghosts, goblins, and Trilateral Commissions. Alex Jones ranks 1,030 on the Alexa Rankings, so clearly there are tons of people who know something’s wrong, but have absolutely no idea how to work out where the power is actually emanating from. I was fooled by Jonestein for a couple of months during the awakening process, but I smelled a rat (faced-Jew) pretty quickly!

Fyvush_Finkel
Those at the ‘top of the pyramid’ tend to look like this

I know that I’m an intelligent person, much smarter than the average in regards to IQ, but I’m not some super-smart genius or anything. Why is it that I can figure the entire world political situation out, while much more intelligent people, like physics professors and mathematicians, often don’t seem to be able to? (Obviously, William L Pierce is excluded from the list of physics professors who can’t figure it out!) This is where I believe perception comes into the equation.

Intelligent thought is one thing, but being perceptive and able to see the bigger picture is a different sort of skill. Either you are born with it, or you’re not. This is why I think geniuses are often compartmentalised in their brilliance. They can only use their intellect in certain fields, and the rest of the world is lost on them. Only a naturally perceptive mind has any hope of reaching the point where they can see past all the crap, and work out how the world really works.

I think that most people stuck on the ‘Alex Jones- Infowars’ level are intelligent, but sorely lacking in the skill of perceiving how power operates. As we know, all Alex Jones does, is point (with his fat fingers) at every conceivable Goyim group, real or fictitious, and says,

“Well, we know it’s the Germanic Death Cult, since Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was a Nazi, and he was in the Bilderberg Group, they’re planning to use Nazi Eugenics on us all to reduce the population, and we should never forget that Hitler holocausted 6 million Jews”.

The guy talks utter crap, and whenever he points at a ‘Shabbos Goy’ (Jew collaborator), these people are fooled into believing that the Jews aren’t the force at the top of the pyramid. How many giant criminal networks don’t have willing sell-out collaborators assisting them? Could the Jews do all this on their own? Of course not! But it doesn’t mean that they aren’t the controllers and string-pullers behind the agenda. The fact that big fat Alex Jones broadcasts from a Jewish owned radio network, with nearly all Jewish sponsors, should arouse suspicion amongst his followers! The strange thing is that it doesn’t seem to. It illustrates how gullible people can be, and these people are at least somewhat intelligent.

FatboyJones
Alex Jones: The fat lunatic is constantly lying to his gullible followers

The faculty of critical thought is an extension of general intelligence, or IQ of a person. It can be taught to people who are intelligent enough to use it, but it’s more a question of whether the individual is mentally active, or mentally lazy.

If I were a betting man, I’d say that most people lack a virtue which is very tempting for the average coward to ignore: Mental Courage! Take a certain portion within the Alex Jonestein camp, and I bet they know the real deal, but simply do not have the guts to admit it. They are truly pathetic, and in fact, are far worse than the genuinely gullible person.

A person must possess all four skills/abilities if they are ever going to work things out.

Sufficient levels of intellect and perceptivity are something that an individual either has, or doesn’t have. These two factors depend entirely on the innate qualities within an individual, and cannot be learned.

intellect
Without it, you can never hope to correctly diagnose what’s causing all the problems!

Whether someone has the mental courage to face the truth depends upon their innate nature mainly, but environmental factors may also come into play, either enhancing or hindering the individual’s level of mental courage.

Everyone is born with a certain ‘level of inclination’ toward critical thought. Some have no inclination, while others are very critical thinkers. With a bit of training and effort, the mentally lazy person can be taught to think critically!

That is my basic summary of how I view the concept and reality of power in this world. Just in case anyone reading this doesn’t know that it’s the Jews at the top of the pyramid; please return to this fundamental truism:

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you aren’t allowed to criticize.”

It never fails.

It's never them!
It’s never them!

– Brett